THE  RAILROAD  QUESTION. 


i 

SPEECH 


OF 


OLIVER  E.  BRANCH, 

REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  WEARE, 


IN  THU 

*  House  of  Representatives  in  favor  of  the 

Hazen  Bill, 


SEPTEMBER  IS,  1887. 


Concorb,  |1.  Jp. 

PRINTED  RY  THE  REPUBLICAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION. 

1  88  7. 


* 


THE  RAILROAD  QUESTION. 


SPEECH 


OLIVER  E.  BRANCH 

REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  WEARE, 


IN  THE 


House  of  Representatives  in  favor  of  the 

Hazen  Bill, 


SEPTEMBER  13 ,  1887. 


®0nx0rir,  ft- 


PRINTED  BY  THE  REPUBLICAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION. 

1  88  7. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/railroadquestionOObran 


3S5.1 


SPEECH. 


Mr.  Speaker  and  Gentlemen  : 

Railroads  are  creatures  of  the  law.  They  come  into  existence 
by  the  consent  and  operation  of  the  law,  depend  upon  it  for  their 
continuance,  move  within  such  limitations  as  the  law  prescribes, 
and  are  possessed  of  such  rights  and  charged  with  such  duties  as 
the  law  enumerates.  Railroads  are  of  necessity  monopolies. 
There  is  a  contract  between  every  railroad  company  and  the 
state,  by  the  terms  of  which,  in  consideration  of  the  right  to  be 
a  monopoly,  which  the  state  confers  upon  the  railroad  company, 
the  railroad  company  consents  to  be  and  to  become  a  public  ser¬ 
vant.  The  dream  of  a  golden  age  in  the  future,  when  railroads 
will  not  be  monopolies,  wTill  never  come  true.  The  vision  of  two 
railroads,  or  two  railroad  systems,  that  will  consent  to  do  busi¬ 
ness  for  nothing,  out  of  love  for  the  public  and  to  feed  fat  a 
mutual  grudge,  will  never  be  realized  ;  and  whether  the  trans¬ 
portation  service  of  the  state  be  done  by  one  company  or  by  six, 
with  a  capital  of  $1,000,000  or  $100,000,000,  it  will  be  a  monop¬ 
oly  still.  Railroads  being  a  creation  of  the  law,  it  follows  that 
the  history  of  railroad  development  is  a  history  of  railroad  leg¬ 
islation.  One  follows  and  reflects  the  other. 

There  are  three  periods  of  railroad  legislation  and  railroad 
development  in  this  country, — construction,  competition,  and 
consolidation.  The  period  of  construction,  pure  and  simple,  has 
passed.  The  period  of  competition,  as  a  regulator  of  rates,  has 
passed.  The  period  of  consolidation,  under  state  control,  has 
come.  The  Granger  laws,  as  they  were  called,  closed  substan¬ 
tially  the  period  of  competition  in  this  country.  They  were  an 
attempt  by  law  to  regulate  in  detail  passenger  and  freight 
charges.  They  were  a  protest  against  the  theory  of  competi¬ 
tion  as  a  regulator  of  freight  and  fares,  and  an  announcement 


4 


that  so  far  from  being  a  safeguard  and  a  defence  of  the  public 
against  high  charges,  competition  is  so  only  to  a  limited  extent, 
and  that  in  its  general,  comprehensive  result  competition  is  ruin¬ 
ous  both  to  the  public  and  to  the  railroads.  These  laws  have 
been  repealed.  They  have  given  place  to  the  policy  which  now 
prevails  in  almost  every  state  in  this  country,  a  policy  which 
England  settled  upon  long  ago,  viz.,  consolidation  coupled  with 
state  control  operating  through  the  agency  of  a  railroad  com¬ 
mission. 

I  claim,  gentlemen,  that  the  policy  of  consolidating  rail¬ 
roads,  whether  of  continuous  or  competing  lines,  under  the 
management  of  the  state,  as  I  have  indicated,  is  now  conceded, 
accepted,  and  admitted  by  everybody  who  has  given  the  matter 
anv  considerable  studv  or  investigation  to  be  the  onlv  policv 
that  has  resulted  in  any  permanent  good  to  the  public,  and  that 
for  more  than  sixteen  years  railroad  legislation  of  the  most  pro¬ 
gressive  and  advanced  states  of  the  world  has  been  in  that  di¬ 
rection.  Judge  Bingham  concedes  that  the  consolidation  of  con¬ 
necting  lines  is  the  proper  policy,  but  not  of  different  independ¬ 
ent  lines, — independent,  continuous  lines,  as  he  terms  them  ; — but 
can  Judge  Bingham  or  anvbodv  else  tell  us  why  a  railroad  com- 
pany  is  less  powerful  when  it  has  one  line  500  miles  long  than 
it  is  when  it  has  two  lines  250  miles  long?  He  professes  to  be 
alarmed  at  the  policy  that  will  permit  the  consolidation  of  differ¬ 
ent  independent  lines  ; — but  why  is  a  company  more  powerful 
when  its  lines  are  divergent  than  when  they  are  continuous? 
Now,  gentlemen,  the  same  advantages  precisely,  which  follow 
the  consolidation  of  separate,  continuous  lines,  come  from  the 
consolidation  of  independent  lines  where  they  can  be  managed 
from  a  common  centre.  What  are  the  advantages?  Why,  first, 
enormous  reductions  in  operating  expenses, — I  believe  the  gen¬ 
tleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sulloway,  said  from  33  to  50  per 
cent.  :  greater  despatch  in  the  transportation  of  freight,  greater 
facility  in  the  handling  of  freight,  is  secured,  all  of  which  re¬ 
sults  in  lower  freights  and  fares,  besides,  which  is  not  its  least 
advantage,  increased  responsibility,  which  always  produces  in¬ 
creased  caution,  and  a  more  ready  response  to  the  demands  of 
the  public  for  railway  accommodations. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  read  one  or  two  extracts  bearing 


5 


upon  the  wisdom  of  railroad  consolidation.  First,  I  call  your 
attention  brief!}7  to  something  that  was  said  here  in  1883  by 
Judge  Cross,  when  he  was  advocating  the  passage  of  the  Colby 
bill.  He  says, — “In  the  first  place,  I  submit  that  all  the  reason 
and  all  the  arguments  that  I  have  advanced  in  favor  of  a  gene¬ 
ral  law  for  organizing  railroads  under  a  general  law  apply  with 
equal  force  to  a  general  law  for  leasing  and  consolidating.”  It 
would  seem  that  Judge  Cross  had  been  discussing  that  bill  as 
though  it  provided  for  building  under  a  general  law,  and  then  he 
proceeds  to  discuss  it  under  the  phase  of  consolidating  under 
the  general  laws.  “I  confess  that  I  have  changed  my  views  in 
regard  to  consolidating.  There  is  in  the  state,  I  know,  a  sort 
of  feeling  or  sentiment  that  consolidating  is  bad  or  dangerous 
to  the  people.  I  thought  so  once  ;  but  an  examination  and 
study  of  the  railroad  problem  have  satisfied  me  that  it  is  the 
inevitable  law  of  railroad  progress,  and  that  whatever  we  may 
do  here  in  New  Hampshire,  in  other  states,  and  in  other  coun¬ 
tries,  consolidation  of  railroads  must  and  will  follow  :  yes,  and 
it  is  already  an  accomplished  fact.”  Further,  he  says, — “I 
submit  that  this  talk  about  railroad  kings  and  great  capital  is,  in 
the  words  of  Charles  Francis  Adams  on  the  same  topic,  4  unmit¬ 
igated  cant.’  It  is  the  talk  of  men  who  either  have  not  investi¬ 
gated,  or  act  the  part  of  demagogues.  Col.  George,  with  all 
men  who  have  investigated,  says  that  the  greater  the  corpo¬ 
ration,  the  greater  the  capital  and  profits,  the  less  influence  it 
has  to  affect  and  control  legislation,  and  the  greater  demand  the 
public  makes  for  lower  fares  and  better  accommodations.  The 
legislature  has  the  absolute  and  the  entire  control  of  all  the  rail¬ 
roads  in  the  state,  whether  separate  or  consolidated.”  That  is 
the  statement  of  Judge  Cross,  a  lawyer  of  eminence  in  this  state, 
and  a  man  who  had  evidently  given  this  subject  considerable 
study  and  investigation.  That  is  his  deliberate  utterance  upon 
this  topic  in  1883.  Other  men  of  equal  intelligence  and  culture 
have  investigated  the  same  subject,  and  have  come  precisely  to 
the  same  conclusion. 

I  want  to  read  a  few  words  from  the  editorial  article  that  ap¬ 
peared  in  the  Nashua  Telegraph  at  the  time  this  bill  was  under 
discussion,  presumably  the  utterance  of  the  distinguished  gen¬ 
tleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Moore.  He  says, — 44  When  two  cor- 


6 


porations  become  one  by  lease  or  consolidation,  the  state  has 
one  party  less  to  deal  with.  This  is  an  advantage  in  so  far  as 
simplification  and  directness  are  concerned.  The  state  and  the 
people  have  no  more  capital  arrayed  against  them  when  two  cor¬ 
porations  are  united  than  when  they  are  separated,  unless  there 
is  stock  watering  in  effecting  the  union.  The  power  of  the  uni¬ 
ted  corporations  is  not  so  great  in  some  respects  as  the  separate 
corporations,  because  there  are  not  so  many  4  sticks  ’  in  the  bun¬ 
dle,  counting  directors,  treasurers,  and  presidents  as  sticks,  and 
they  are  the  main  ones  in  all  consolidations.  All  the  terrors 
that  are  sought  to  be  aroused  by  invoking  the  names  of  Fisk 
and  Gould  and  Vanderbilt  are  based  on  a  misconception.” 
How  cheering  and  comforting  these  words  must  be  to  my  distin¬ 
guished  friend  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sulloway.  “Those  rail¬ 
road  barons  were  the  product  of  a  stage  of  railroad  development 
that  brought  consolidation  without  state  regulation,  and  to 
which  all  existing  abuses  are  attributable.  We  may  denounce 
consolidation  as  much  as  we  please,  but  it  is  actual  everywhere. 
Under  such  a  state  of  things  consolidated  management  under 
rigid  state  control  has  less  public  peril  than  independent  man¬ 
agement  under  feeble  regulation  as  it  now  is  in  this  state.  The 
latter  is  consolidation  with  no  regulation  :  the  former  is  con¬ 
solidation  with  regulation.  The  one  is  the  rule  of  the  people 
and  the  state  by  the  railroad  barons  :  the  other  is  the  rule  of 
the  railroad  barons  by  the  state  and  people.”  I  hold  in  my 
hand  a  book  entitled  “  Railroads  :  their  Origin  and  Problems,” 
edited  by  Charles  Francis  Adams,  who,  probably,  is  the  most 
distinguished  and  enlightened  railroad  writer  in  this  country, 
and  he  has  something  to  say  upon  this  subject  of  consolidation 
which  is  exactly  in  line  with  the  utterances  of  my  friend  Judge 
Cross,  and  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Moore.  He  says, — 
“Of  all  foreign  experiences,  that  of  England  most  resembles 
that  of  our  own.  The  only  essential  difference  is,  that  England  is 
wealthier  and  infinitely  more  compact  than  the  United  States,  so 
that,  as  respects  railroads,  causes  produce  their  results  much 
more  quickly  there  than  here.  Nowhere,  however,  is  the  pres¬ 
ent  tendency  towards  the  concentration  of  railroad  interests  in 
a  few  hands  more  apparent  than  in  England.  The  mill  of  com¬ 
petition  has  there  about  fulfilled  its  allotted  work.  The  whole 


7 


English  railway  system  has  now  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  few 
great  railroad  companies,  by  whom  the  country  is  practically 
divided  into  separate  districts.  These  are  literally  in  the  hands 
of  monopolists.  The  practical  result  of  this  consolidation,  as 
compared  with  the  old-fashioned  competition,  was  set  forth  in 
two  concrete  cases  by  the  parliamentary  Committee  on  Railways 
Amalgamation  of  1872,  in  language  which  has  already  been 
quoted,  but  which  in  this  connection  will  bear  repetition.  “  The 
North-Eastern  Railway  is  composed  of  thirty-seven  lines,  several 
of  which  formerly  competed  with  each  other.  Before  their 
amalgamation,  they  had,  generally  speaking,  high  rates  and 
fares,' and  low  dividends.  The  system  is  now  a  most  complete 
monopoly  in  the  united  kingdom  ;  from  the  Tyne  to  the  Hum¬ 
ber,  with  one  local  exception,  it  has  the  country  to  itself,  and  it 
has  the  lowest  fares  and  highest  dividends  of  any  large  English 
railway.  It  has  had  little  or  no  litigation  with  other  companies. 
While  complaints  have  been  heard  from  Lancashire  and  York¬ 
shire,  where  there  are  so-called  competing  lines,  no  witness  has 
appeared  to  complain  of  the  North-Eastern,  and  the  general  feel¬ 
ing  in  the  district  it  serves  appears  favorable  to  its  manage¬ 
ment.”  And  further  on  he  says, — u  In  this  country  as  well  as  in 
Great  Britain,  those  wise  people  who  so  earnestly  point  out  the 
dangers  incident  to  railroad  concentration  wholly  ignore  the  im¬ 
portant  practical  fact  that  concentration  not  only  brings  with  it 
a  corresponding  increase  of  jealousy,  but  also  an  equally  in¬ 
creased  sense  of  responsibility.  It  is  not  the  few  great  corpora¬ 
tions  which  are  politically  dangerous,  but  the  many  log-rolling 
little  ones.  No  one  who  has  had  experience  in  dealing  be¬ 
fore  a  legislative  body  with  questions  affecting  railroad  interests 
has  failed  to  realize  this  fact.  *  *  *  *  Little  as  those  who 

expatiate  on  the  subject  seem  to  realize  it,  it  is  nevertheless 
true  that  each  new  railroad  the  Vanderbilt,  or  the  Jay  Gould, 
or  the  Huntington  interest  acquires,  the  more  cautious  and  con¬ 
servative  they  become.  They  realize  the  responsibility  and  dan¬ 
ger  of  their  position,  if  their  critics  do  not.  The  only  present 
difficulty  is,  that  those  who  undertake  to  represent  the  communi¬ 
ty  neither  understand  the  situation  nor  know  how  to  take  advan¬ 
tage  of  it.” 

So  much,  gentlemen,  upon  the  theory  and  policy  of  consolida- 


8 


tion.  Now,  in  1883  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  decided  to 
abandon  the  policy  of  railroad  legislation  which  it  had  pursued 
for  half  a  century,  which  was  well  enough  suited  to  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  state  and  its  business  at  the  time  it  began,  and  to 
the  experimental  and  formative  period  of  railroad  development, 
and  at  a  single  stride  placed  herself  abreast  of  the  most  progres¬ 
sive  states  of  the  world  in  that  regard  by  the  enactment  of  a 
general  railroad  law  and  a  law  establishing  the  board  of  railroad 
commissioners.  In  plain,  comprehensive  language  and  in  the 
most  explicit  terms  she  discarded  the  theory  of  special  legisla¬ 
tion,  and  at  the  same  time  brought  into  view  and  into  effective 
and  practical  operation  the  absolute  power  of  the  state  over 
railroads  in  all  matters  touching  the  public  welfare.  It  has 
been  argued  that  a  general  railroad  law  is  not  a  law  which  pro¬ 
vides  for  consolidating  and  leasing,  but  is  simply  a  law  which 
provides  generally  for  building.  That  is  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Manchester.  Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous 
than  such  a  statement  as  that.  A  general  railroad  law  is  a  gen¬ 
eral  law  which  takes  the  place  of  all  special  laws,  enabling  rail¬ 
road  companies  to  do  anything  that  railroad  companies  can  do  ; 
and  if  you  will  look  at  the  general  railroad  laws  of  every  state 
where  they  obtain,  you  will  find  that  they  provide  for  construc¬ 
tion,  long  leasing,  and  consolidation. 

Two  different  constructions  have  been  placed  upon  this  law  of 
1883  called  the  Colby  act.  One  corresponds  to  the  suspicions 
which  the  gentleman  from  Atkinson,  Mr.  Todd,  had  of  it  when 
it  was  under  discussion  in  the  house.  It  seems  that  they  had 
been  discussing  it  as  though  it  were  a  general  railroad  law,  be¬ 
cause  Mr.  Todd  said, — “  I  object  to  this  bill  because  it  is  not 
what  it  purports  to  be,  a  general  railroad  law,  but  a  law  to  per¬ 
mit  the  general  consolidation  of  the  Concord  and  several  other 
roads,  and  enable  the  Boston  &  Maine  to  lease  the  Eastern, 
which  ends  the  friends  of  these  schemes  think  would  be  better 
gained  in  this  crafty  way  than  by  an  open  demand.”  Mr.  Todd 
thought  the  act  ‘purported  to  be  a  general  railroad  law,  but  he 
had  a  suspicion,  it  seems,  that  somebody  might  construe  it  dif¬ 
ferently,  and  his  suspicions  have  been  verified.  For  now  we 
find  that  one  of  these  parties  whom  he  says  was  scheming  in 
that  way  comes  up  here  and  says  that  it  was,  after  all,  a  special 


9 


law.  Mr.  Tocld’s  suspicions  were  true.  The  suspicious  view 
of  this  law,  as  announced  by  Mr.  Todd,  is  the  view  now  taken 
by  the  adherents  of  the  Atherton  bill.  There  is  another  con¬ 
struction  which  has  been  given  to  this  law.  It  is  the  construc¬ 
tion  which  was  given  to  it  by  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr. 
Moore,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Todd’s  suggestion.  Mr.  Moore  says, — 
“  The  Colby  bill  is  both  a  general  railroad  law  aud  a  bill  to  per¬ 
mit  general  consolidation  and  leasing.  It  does  not  purport  to 
be  anything  else.  The  railroads  have  pretended  nothing  else. 
The  only  craft  displayed  in  the  matter  is  the  request  for  general 
instead  of  special  legislation.  The  one  seeks  a  privilege  free 
to  all,  the  other  aims  at  monopoly.”  This  construction  of  the 
law  of  1883,  so  clearlv,  so  logicallv,  so  reasonablv  stated  bv  mv 
accomplished  friend  from  Nashua,  is  precisely  the  construction 
which  is  now  placed  upon  it  by  the  friends  of  the  Hazen  bill. 
But  it  is  said  by  the  Concord  road  that  this  construction  is  not 
correct ;  that  it  was  after  all  only  the  old  kind  of  special  leg¬ 
islation,  and  that  it  meant  to  confer  upon  the  Boston  &  Maine 
the  right  to  consolidate  with  the  Eastern,  and  upon  the  Concord 
the  right  to  consolidate  with  the  two  upper  roads.  Mr.  Mitchell 
says,  on  page  seven  of  his  argument,  that  that  was  all  that  was 
designed  to  be  accomplished  by  it. 

Gentlemen,  I  venture  to  assert  that  such  a  construction  of 
that  law  never  would  be  made,  unless  it  was  compelled  to 
be  made  by  the  stress  and  exigency  of  the  Concord  road  in 
this  contest.  The  title  of  the  act  alone  demonstrates  that :  “An 
act  providing  for  the  establishment  of  railroad  corporations  by 
general  law.”  If  the  act  meant  what  Mr.  Mitchell  says  it  does 
mean,  why  was  it  not  entitled  An  act  to  enable  the  Boston  & 
Maine  to  lease  the  Eastern,  and  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Mon¬ 
treal  to  unite  with  the  Northern  and  the  Concord?  Mr.  Mitch¬ 
ell  says  that  was  its  sole  purpose — a  special  law  to  accomplish 
these  two  particular  things.  Well,  gentlemen,  did  you  ever  hear 
of  a  special  law  before  in  which  the  beneficiary  was  not  so  much 
as  named,  or  even  hinted  ?  No  doubt  these  roads  intended  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  opportunities  of  that  law.  No  doubt 
they  passed  resolutions  in  May  favoring  a  consolidation  ;  but 
their  hopes  and  purposes  and  expectations  and  resolutions  can¬ 
not  now  be  taken  to  be  the  sole  intent  and  purpose  of  the  legis- 


10 


lature.  What  these  railroad  companies  were  seeking  to  do  in 
May  is  one  thing  :  what  the  legislature  proposed  to  do  in  August 
is  another  thing.  Why,  gentlemen,  it  is  as  absurd  as  it  would  be 
for  somebody  to  say  that  the  ten-hour  law  and  the  weekly-pay¬ 
ment  law,  which  we  have  passed  at  this  session  of  the  legislature, 
were  designed  for  the  benefit  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  only,  be¬ 
cause  they  presented  numerous  petitions  in  behalf  of  those  laws, 
and  because,  at  their  convention  here  last  summer,  they  passed 
resolutions  advocating  the  passage  of  those  laws. 

The  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sulloway,  in  discussing 
this  point  last  week,  called  our  attention  to  the  report  of  the 
railroad  committee  of  1883  upon  the  bill  which  was  then  pend¬ 
ing,  ratifying  the  lease  of  the  Nashua  &  Lowell  by  the  Boston 
and  Lowell ;  and  he  argued  to  you  that  that  report  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  indicated  that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road  was  not  intend¬ 
ed  to  be  included  within  the  scope  of  this  law.  Gentlemen,  I  say 
that  report  indicates  exactly  the  opposite  state  of  facts.  Now, 
I  want  to  ask  right  here,  Does  anybody  suppose  or  believe  that 
it  was  the  deliberate,  studied  intention  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  to  exclude  the  Boston  &  Lowell  from  the  operation 
of  that  act?  Was  it  the  intention  of  that  act?  Was  it  the  in¬ 
tention  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to  discriminate  against 
that  foreign  corporation  and  not  against  others?  Why,  if  there 
is  any  foreign  corporation,  any  railroad  at  all  that  ought  to  be 
included  in  the  law  and  not  excluded,  it  is  the  Boston  &  Low¬ 
ell,  because  of  its  intimate  connection  with  the  New  Hampshire 
roads,  and  its  importance  as  a  connecting  link  to  Boston.  Now 
what  does  that  report  say  ? 

“  The  present  legislature  has  spent  nearly  three  months  in 
an  effort  to  provide  for  the  manner  of  making  and  perfecting 
unions  and  leases  of  New  Hampshire  railroads,  under  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  house  bill  No.  46.  Should  that  bill  become  a  law,  it 
seems  obvious  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  exercise  a  discrimina¬ 
tion  in  favor  of  a  Massachusetts  corporation  bv  conferring  upon 
it  rights  and  immunities  which  are  not  accorded  to  other  rail- 
roads  under  the  provisions  of  the  general  laws.” 

“  Should  that  bill  become  a  law,  it  seems  obvious  that  it 
would  be  unjust  to  exercise  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  a  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  corporation  by  conferring  upon  it  rights  and  immuni- 


11 


ties  which  are  not  accorded  to  other  roads  under  the  provisions 
of  the  general  law.”  “ Other  roads  under  the  provisions  of  the 
general  law.”  It  would  be  unjust  to  give  that  road  greater  ad¬ 
vantages  than  it  gives  the  rest  of  the  roads  in  the  state,  there¬ 
fore  thev  said. — “  We  will  not  ratify  this  lease.  We  will  leave 

i.  »■ 

it  exactly  where  it  is  now,  and  then  should  this  bill  become  a 
law  the  Boston  &  Lowell  will  stand  exactly  like  all  other  roads. 
No  discrimination  against  a  foreign  corporation,  no  discrimina¬ 
tion  in  favor  of  a  foreign  corporation,  but  one  law  for  all.” 

That  is  the  plain,  the  logical,  the  reasonable  interpretation, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  of  that  report,  so  far  as  it  throws  any  light 
upon  this  question.  Now,  these  words,  “  It  would  be  unjust  to 
exercise  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  a  Massachusetts  corpora¬ 
tion  b}7  conferring  upon  it  rights  and  immunities  which  are  not 
accorded  to  other  roads  under  the  provisions  of  the  general 
law.” — these  words  have  no  meaning  at  all  unless  this  same 
Massachusetts  corporation  is  one  of  the  roads  that  are  included 
under  that  general  law. 

Now,  it  is  said  that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road  opposed  this 
bill.  That  is  very  true  ;  that  is  admitted.  But  they  did  not 
oppose  it  because  it  did  not  allow  them  to  come  in.  Search  the 
speeches  of  the  counsel  for  the  Lowell  road  that  were  made  here 
before  the  railroad  committee  in  1883,  and  you  will  search  them 
in  vain  for  a  single  statement  that  they  opposed  it  on  the 
ground  that  the  Lowell  road  was  not  included.  I  will  tell  vou 
why  they  opposed  it.  They  opposed  it,  in  the  first  place,  be¬ 
cause,  from  the  action  taken  by  the  Concord  road  and  the  Mon¬ 
treal  road  and  the  Northern  road  in  May  previous,  they  had 
good  reason  to  believe  that  that  matter  had  all  been  arranged, 
and  that  when  the  law  was  passed,  although  thev  could  come 
in  there  would  be  nothing  for  them  to  get  after  they  got  here. 
That  was  the  reason  they  opposed  it,  because  they  thought  the 
thing  had  been  so  preconcerted  and  prearranged  that  if  they 
did  come  in  it  would  do  them  no  good.  And,  moreover, 
they  opposed  that  general  law  for  this  reason  :  Because  it  pro¬ 
vided  that  no  railroad  could  be  built  in  the  first  instance  with¬ 
out  asking  the  permission  of  the  supreme  court  and  the  railroad 
commissioners,  and  they  said  that  is  no  general  railroad  law,  so 
far  as  the  building  is  concerned.  Make  your  general  railroad  law, 


12 


so  far  as  it  relates  to  building,  just  as  such  laws  are  in  other 
states.  They  will  permit  anybody  to  build  a  road  when  he  pays 
a  certain  amount  into  the  state  treasury  as  a  guaranty  of  capi¬ 
tal,  and  when  he  has  laid  out  the  route  and  filed  his  plans  in 
the  proper  office.  That  is  why  they  were  opposing  it,  because 
it  did  not  go  far  enough  as  a  general  law  with  respect  to  build¬ 
ing  ;  and  the  Lowell  opposed  it,  as  I  have  said,  because  they 
thought  that  the  thing  had  been  so  fixed  that  they  would  have 
no  opportunity  of  getting  anything  after  they  got  in.  This  law 
was  opposed  by  the  People  and  Patriot  at  that  time. 

You  know  there  had  been  rather  a  warm  time  at  the  meeting 
of  that  road  in  May  when  they  passed  formal  resolutions  favor¬ 
ing  consolidation,  and  you  will  remember  that  Mr.  Pearson  stat¬ 
ed  in  his  paper  the  next  day  that  that  vote  by  which  they  pro¬ 
posed  to  consolidate  was  not  a  fair  vote  ;  that  it  was  carried 
through  in  a  high-handed  way  by  Mr.  Vose  and  by  others  ;  and 
he  said  in  his  paper  that  if  this  matter  had  been  fairly  presented 
to  the  stockholders  of  the  Concord  road,  they  would  have  voted 
it  down  by  a  majority  of  three  to  one.  That  is  what  The  People 
and  Patriot ,  edited  by  Mr.  Pearson,  stated  at  that  time  was  the 
real  feeling  of  the  stockholders  of  the  Concord  road,  with  respect 
to  consolidating.  He  says,  “  J.  Thomas  Vose,  who  is  the  acting 
president  of  the  Concord  Railroad  Corporation,  not  a  share  stand¬ 
ing  on  the  corporation  books  in  his  name,  made  a  pitiable  exhi¬ 
bition  of  himself  at  the  annual  meeting  on  Tuesday.  His  con¬ 
duct  at  said  meeting  cannot  add  to  his  credit.  There  was  but 
one  feeling  among  the  stockholders  with  respect  to  his  unparlia¬ 
mentary  course,  and  there  can  be  but  one  feeling  among  the 
public  generally.  His  excluding  the  votes  of  the  minority  of  the 
stockholders,  a  right  guaranteed  by  the  laws  of  the  state,  and 
which,  could  it  have  been  taken,  would  have  shown  a  majority  of 
more  than  three  to  one  against  consolidation,  was  a  bold  and 
naked  piece  of  usurpation,  utterly  indefensible  and  without  the 
least  excuse.”  That,  it  seemed,  was  the  real  feeling  of  the  Con¬ 
cord  road  at  the  time  it  passed  this  resolution  in  May,  1883.  Well, 
Mr.  Pearson  was  consistent.  He  says,  “  That  vote  was  not,  af¬ 
ter  all,  an  honest  and  fair  vote.  I  am  opposed  to  it.”  And  he 
continued  to  oppose  it,  and  when  the  Colby  bill  was  under  discus¬ 
sion  in  the  house  in  1883,  Mr.  Pearson  took  occasion  to  say  some 


13 


things  in  regard  to  it.  What  was  his  interpretation  of  what  that 
law  meant?  He  is  standing  up  here  by  his  counsel  and  by  his 
agents  and  saying  that  that  law  was  a  special  law  ;  that  it  sim¬ 
ply  meant  two  consolidations  and  no  more.  And  yet,  if  you  will 
look  at  The  People  and  Patriot  of  August  16,  1883,  you  will  find 
this:  “The  present  legislature  is  coolly  invited  to  enact  into 
law  a  measure  which  contains  not  only  the  very  objectionable 
feature  of  the  bill  of  1881,  but  which  especially  authorizes  not 
only  the  consolidation  of  the  railroads  in  New  Hampshire,  but 
also  of  foreign  corporations  therewith.”  That  is  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  this  law  that  was  given  by  Mr.  John  H.  Pearson  in  1883 
when  it  was  under  discussion  here.  Now,  gentlemen,  what  do 
you  think  of  the  consistency  of  statements  of  that  sort?  What 
do  you  think  of  the  honesty  of  such  a  construction  as  is  contend¬ 
ed  for  here  ?  Why,  it  is  certainly  true  that  in  some  cases  where 
a  statute  is  ambiguous  you  may  take  the  testimony  of  the  sur- 
rounding  circumstances,  but  it  is  new  law  that  the  statements 
and  speeches  of  the  lobbies  made  four  years  before  are  to  be 
considered,  much  less  held  to  be  conclusive,  in  constructing 
statutes.  It  is  well  settled  law,  that  first  of  all  the  meaning 
of  a  statute  is  to  be  discovered  by  reference  to  its  text,  giv¬ 
ing  to  the  words  their  natural,  reasonable,  and  ordinary  mean¬ 
ing  ;  and  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  section  18  of  this  law,  which 
says  “  Railroad  corporations  created  by  the  laws  of  other 
states,  operating  roads  within  this  state,  shall  have  the  same 
rights  for  the  purpose  of  operating,  leasing,  or  uniting  with 
other  roads  as  if  created  by  the  laws  of  this  state,”  is  con¬ 
clusively  against  such  a  construction  as  is  placed  upon  it  by  Mr. 
Mitchell,  and  my  brother,  Mr.  Snlloway.  “Corporations  cre¬ 
ated  by  the  laws  of  other  states,”  Mr.  Mitchell  says  meant  the 
Boston  &  Maine  only.  That  was  before  Mr.  Mitchell  discov¬ 
ered  that  the  Boston  &  Maine  was  a  domestic  corporation.  He 
discovered  that  after  he  made  his  speech.  But  if  it  meant  the 
Boston  &  Maine,  why  did  not  the  legislature  say  “  foreign  cor¬ 
porations,  by  which  is  meant  the  Boston  &  Maine  only,  may 
have  the  same  rights  and  privileges  as  roads  created  by  the  laws 
of  this  state”  ?  What  is  the  other  corporation  ? — the  Boston 
&  Maine  is  only  one — “  corporations  created  by  the  laws  of 
other  states.”  Suppose  the  Boston  &  Maine  was  one,  what  are 


14 


the  others?  Gentlemen,  there  can  be  but  one  fair  and  honest 
construction  of  that  statute.  If  vou  test  it  and  decide  it  bv  the 
ordinary  rules  of  construction,  it  is  that  the  state  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  meant  to  throw  open  her  gates  to  all  foreign  corporations, 
to  all  railroad  corporations  that  could  b}7  any  possibility  have 
any  interchange  of  traffic  arrangement  with  the  roads  of  this 
state.  The  gentleman  from  Laconia  says  ‘k  these  rules  of  con¬ 
struction  are  such  as  courts  adopt,”  and  he  intimated  to  you  the 
other  day  that  they  are  not  safe  rules  for  us  to  adopt.  He  says 
that  is  well  enough  for  courts  ; — courts  take  those  rules  of  con¬ 
struction,  but  that  is  not  the  wav  for  us  to  come  at  the  meaning7 
of  this  law.  Why,  I  beg  to  know,  have  courts  adopted  cer¬ 
tain  rules  of  construction?  Is  it  not  because  those  rules  have 
been  tested  by  experience,  and  found  to  be  safe  and  reasonable 
rules  by  which  to  be  governed?  Are  they  not  founded  in  com¬ 
mon-sense?  I  ask  my  brother;  and  if  so,  why  are  they  not  the 
proper  ones  for  us  to  use,  so  long  as  experience  has  shown  them 
to  be  the  ones  which  courts  may  follow,  and  because  they  are 
sound  in  reason  and  common-sense,  and  correspond  with  the  ex¬ 
perience  and  observation  of  men?  Now,  gentlemen,  the  Lowell 
road  came  here  and  leased  these  two  upper  roads.  My  friend 
from  Manchester  says  they  came  here  without  any  invitation, 
and  he  says,  “  I  challenge  anybody  to  stand  up  and  tell  us  who 
invited  them.”  Well,  I  gladly  accept  that  challenge,  as  I  shall 
several  that  the  gentleman  made.  In  the  first  place,  I  say  that 
the  Lowell  Railroad  was  invited  here  by  the  Northern  road  and 
the  Montreal.  You  remember,  gentlemen,  that  in  the  meetings 
of  stockholders  they  passed  resolutions  that  they  would  unite 
with  the  Concord  road  if  they  could  do  it  on  “  equitable  terms.” 
What  did  the  Concord  propose  as  equitable  terms?  They  hag¬ 
gled  and  dickered  over  it  for  more  than  nine  months,  and  then 
they  proposed  the}7  would  lease  the  Northern  road  at  four  and 
one  half  per  cent,  for  ninety-nine  years,  and  if  its  earnings  in¬ 
creased  $25,000  per  year  they  would  add  a  quarter  more  until 
they  got  up  to  five  and  a  half  per  cent.,  with  the  privilege  at  the 
end  of  three  years  to  the  Concord  road  of  reducing  the  rental  to 
five  per  cent,  at  its  option.  That  was  their  equitable  proposi¬ 
tion  !  Now,  then,  the  Northern  road  and  the  Montreal  were  un¬ 
able  to  make  a  contract  with  the  Concord  that  to  them  seemed 


15 


equitable.  Who  was  to  decide  it,  I  would  like  to  know,  if  it  was 
not  those  roads?  They  were  under  no  implied  contract  or  im¬ 
plied  promise  to  lease  that  road  to  the  Concord  unless  they  could 
do  it  on  equitable  terms  ;  and  they  did  not  consider  that  it  was 
equitable  for  the  Concord  to  say  how  much  they  should  pay  at 
the  end  of  three  years,  and  so  they  went  to  the  Lowell  road  and 
asked  the  Lowell  road  to  lease  them.  This  is  the  fact,  Brother 
Sullowav.  It  was  not  any  “  jumping  ”  or  “leaping,”  as  my 
friend  from  Laconia  expressed  it  the  other  day, — jumping  over 
the  Concord  road, — but  it  was  the  Northern  and  the  Montreal  go¬ 
ing  to  this  Lowell  road  to  get  a  contract  which  they  could  not 
get  out  of  the  Concord.  What  reason  had  they  for  not 
making  a  contract  with  the  Concord,  if  thev  could  do  it  on  fair 
terms  ?  So  there  is  one  party  that  invited  them  here, — these  two 
roads.  The  other  party  that  invited  them  was  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  when,  under  the  18th  section  of  that  act  of  1883,  it 
gave  to  “  any  corporation  created  by  the  laws  of  other  states” 
simply  “  operating ”  roads  within  this  state,  the  right  to  avail 
themselves  of  that  act.  It  did  not  say  legally  operating  them, 
but,  so  far  as  a  standing  in  this  state  was  concerned,  simply 
operating  them.  I  say,  when  they  did  that  they  extended  an 
invitation  to  the  Lowell  road  to  come  here  and  avail  itself  of 
the  act  of  1883. 

The  gentleman  from  Nashua,  in  his  speech,  characterized  the 
conduct  of  the  Northern  road  as  “  subterfuge  and  duplicity,” 
because,  after  the  decision  in  the  Dow  case  they  did  not  make  a 
lease  to  the  Concord  road.  Gentlemen,  who  was  guilty  of  subter- 
fuge  or  duplicity?  I  say  it  was  the  Concord  road,  and  that  road 
only.  What  was  the  memorandum  of  agreement  which  they 
entered  into?  It  was  an  agreement  entered  into  in  June,  1885. 
“  If  the  existing  lease  of  the  Northern  Railroad  and  branches  to 
the  Boston  &  Lowell  Railroad  Corporation  is  not  approved  by 
the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  at  its  present  session,  or  is 
declared  invalid  by  the  supreme  court  of  New  Hampshire  in  a 
suit  now  pending  for  that  purpose,  or  is  terminated  in  any  other 
manner  in  the  meantime,  we  will  use  our  active  influence  and 
efforts  for  the  execution  of  a  similar  lease  or  leases  of  the  North¬ 
ern  Railroad  and  branches  to  the  Concord  Railroad  Corporation 
for  a  like  term,  at  the  same  rent  and  on  the  same  terms  and  con- 


16 


ditions,  the  form  to  be  satisfactory  to  J.  Minot  and  Mr.  Benton, 
but  to  be  substantially  like  that  of  the  existing  lease,  and  the 
money,  result,  and  obligations  assumed  by  the  parties  to  be  the 
same  as  under  the  existing  lease.”  That  was  the  memorandum 
of  agreement,  and  it  is  said  that  because  the  Northern  road  did 
not  make  a  lease  under  that  agreement  it  was  guilty  of  “  subter¬ 
fuge  and  duplicity.”  Now,  I  say  that  the  only  “  subterfuge  and 
duplicity”  in  the  matter  wras  shown  by  the  Concord  road.  Imme¬ 
diately  after  the  handing  down  of  the  decision  in  the  Dow  case, 
Mr.  A.  L.  Sulloway,  representing  the  Northern  road,  undertook 
negotiations  with  the  Concord  road,  seeking  for  the  carrying  out 
of  that  memorandum  agreement  of  June,  1885,  as  you  will  see 
by  the  letter  of  Judge  Minot  on  page  31  of  the  testimony. 
What  did  the  Concord  road  do  after  they  had  received  these 
suggestions  from  Mr.  Sullowav?  Did  they  come  right  up  to  the 
scratch  and  take  that  lease  like  men?  Not  at  all.  Read  the 
subsequent  three  letters  of  Judge  Minot,  and  see  how  he  com¬ 
mences  to  back  and  fill,  to  evade,  and  raise  up  objections,  and 
to  talk  about  what  the  Lawrence  would  want  and  what  the  Mon¬ 
treal  would  want,  and  that  there  would  have  to  be  some  more 
new  legislation.  Its  plain,  simple  interpretation  was  this  :  “We 
have  got  you,  gentlemen,  now,  where  we  can  dictate  terms,  and 
we  will  hold  you  there  until  we  can  make  our  terras.”  Their 
last  proposition  was  this  :  That  they  would  take  that  lease  on 
the  same  terms  that  were  mentioned  in  the  agreement,  pro¬ 
vided  the  Northern  road  would  sell  out  its  Concord  stock  to 
friends  of  the  Concord.  Was  that  as  they  agreed?  Was  there 

anv  condition  of  that  sort  in  that  memorandum  of  1885?  Were 
»/ 

the  terms  of  that  memorandum  of  1885  that  they  would  take  a 
lease  provided  the  Northern  road  would  sell  out  its  stock  to 
them  ?  Not  at  all.  They  injected  that  as  a  condition  at  the  last 
moment,  and  they  would  not  take  a  lease  under  any  circum¬ 
stances  unless  the  Northern  road  would  sell  out  its  stock.  Now, 
when  the  directors  of  the  Northern  road  saw  that  the  Concord 
was  playing  with  them,  was  “  sinching”  them,  they  would  have 
been  false  to  their  trust  if  they  did  not  close  with  another  com¬ 
pany  that  made  a  fair  and  certain  and  positive  and  definite 
offer.  When,  three  days  afterwards,  the  Concord  road  learned 
that  the  Lowell  was  likely  to  get  the  lease,  all  the  difficulties 


17 


that  Judge  Minot  had  conjured  up  suddenly  vanished.  No  new 
legislation  needed.  All  the  trouble  about  the  Montreal  went  out 
of  sight.  All  the  difficulties  which  he  had  talked  about  in  his 
three  several  letters  suddenly  disappeared.  Then  they  passed 
a  resolution  that  they  take  a  lease  at  six  per  cent.  Who  was 
guilty  of  “  subterfuge  and  duplicity”?  I  have  not  any  doubt 
what  any  honest  man  will  say  about  that.  [Applause.]  The 
gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sulloway,  says, — “  Are  you 
going  to  lease  this  Northern  at  five  per  cent,  for  ten  years  and 
six  per  cent,  for  eighty-nine,  when  the  Concord  would  give  you 
six  per  cent,  from  the  beginning?  Why,  you  are  taking  three 
hundred  thousand  dollars  from  the  stockholders  of  the  Northern 
road,  $30,000  a  year.”  Well,  my  friend,  if  the  stockholders  of 
the  Northern  road  are  satisfied  with  that  arrangement,  do  you 
think  it  is  very  becoming  for  you  and  me  to  fret  over  it?  Be¬ 
sides,  I  would  like  to  know  if  that  three  hundred  thousand  dollars 
that  would  be  paid  to  the  stockholders  is  not  coming  right  out  of 
the  people  eventually  in  the  way  of  freights  and  fares  ? 

But  the  gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Stone,  says  the  Lowell 
did  not  take  the  Northern  and  the  Montreal  road  in  good  faith. 
I  have  already  alluded  to  this  argument,  by  which  he  attempted 
to  construe  this  statute  bv  taking  the  resolutions  of  these  roads 
at  their  annual  meetings  and  ignoring  all  the  rules  of  construc¬ 
tion  that  are  adopted  by  the  courts. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  next  point  he  made,  which 
was  that  the  Lowell  did  not  take  these  roads  in  good  faith.  And 
how  doe3  he  prove  it?  Why,  by  reading  the  protest  that  was 
entered  at  the  stockholders’  meeting,  called  to  ratify  that  lease, 
the  protest  that  was  entered  by  Mr.  Dow  and  several  other 
stockholders,  representing  about  125  shares  in  all.  Because 
Mr.  Dow  protested  against  that  lease,  it  is  argued  that  the 
Lowell  did  not  take  the  lease  in  good  faith.  That  is  the  propo¬ 
sition.  Can  the  gentleman  from  Laconia  put  it  upon  any  other 
ground  than  that?  How  in  the  world  so  good  a  lawyer  as  my 
friend  Mr.  Stone  can  stand  up  here  and  argue  in  any  such 
fashion  as  that  passes  my  comprehension.  What  is  the  test  of 
the  Lowell’s  good  faith  ?  The  test  of  the  Lowell’s  good  faith 
was  this :  Did  they  believe,  or  were  they  warranted  in  believ¬ 
ing,  that  the  state  meant  to  include  them  within  the  scope  of 
2 


18 


that  law ?  The  state’s  intention ,  not  Mr.  Dow’s  wish ,  was  the 
thing  to  be  considered.  It  is  true  that  if  a  man  should  buy  a 
cow  or  a  farm,  knowing  that  the  title  was  not  in  the  seller,  or 
had  reasonable  grounds  to  believe  that  he  had  no  good  title,  he 
would  take  it  at  his  peril,  and  he  would  not  be  a  purchaser  in 
good  faith.  But  if  his  title  was  to  all  appearances  good,  and 
he  took  it,  then  he  is  a  bona  fide  purchaser,  although  the  title 
mav  prove  bad.  Gentlemen,  suppose  one  of  you  should  buy 
my  farm,  and  when  you  came  to  take  the  deed  somebody  stand¬ 
ing  around  should  say, — “That  deed  is  defective;  ought  to 
be  a  seal,  or  some  clause  has  been  left  out — vou  better  not 
take  that:”  you  would  say, — “Why,  I  bought  that  farm  in 
good  faith,  because  I  understood  that  he  meant  to  sell  it  to 
me.  Because  of  a  mistake  in  the  deed ,  it  does  not  follow  that  I 
did  not  buy  in  good  faith.”  And  because  there  was  a  mistake 
in  the  deed  which  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  gave  to  the 
Lowell  road,  shall  we  stand  up  here  and  say  they  did  not  take 
the  lease  in  good  faith  ?'  There  was  a  defect  in  that  law.  It 
was  the  mistake  of  the  state.  It  was  no  fault  of  the  Lowell 
road:  and  because  the  state  made  a  mistake  in  its  deed,  shall 
we  say  the  Lowell  did  not  act  in  good  faith  ?  Why  should  they 
suspect  there  was  any  defect  there?  The  law  had  just  been 
passed,  after  an  exhaustive  and  able  discussion  by  some  of  the 
most  accomplished  and  able  counsel  in  the  state  ;  and  especially 
why  should  they  suspect  any  defect  of  that  sort,  when  the  de¬ 
cision  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
that  there  is  such  a  defect  stands  solitary  and  alone  in  the 
records  of  judicial  determination  ?  Everybod}7  admits  there  is 
a  defect  in  that  law,  under  the  ruling  of  the  court.  The  Ha- 
zen  bill  proposes  to  cure  that  defect,  and  to  put  the  Lowell 
road  exactly  where  it  would  be  had  not  that  defect  occurred. 
In  that  way  it  is  proposed  to  carry  out  exactly  the  provi¬ 
sions  of  that  law  of  1883,  and  this  legislation  is  in  harmony 
with  that  law.  The  Atherton  bill  proposes  to  cure  that  de¬ 
fect,  but  at  the  same  time  to  let  the  Concord  road  in  and  secure 
the  opportunity  which  it  neglected,  which  it  let  go  by,  and 
which,  according  to  the  statement  of  Mr.  Pearson,  was  not 
wanted  by  more  than  three  fourths  of  the  stockholders  of  the 
Concord  road.  That  was  the  “  unexpected  operation  ”  of  the 


19 


law.  They  expected  to  consolidate  when  the  law  was  passed, 
but  when  they  could  not  get  equitable  terms  out  of  the  Con¬ 
cord,  then  there  was  nothing  left  for  the  Northern  but  to  make 
such  terms  as  it  could  with  other  roads.  Now,  gentlemen,  let 
me  put  to  you  a  plain  question.  Suppose  it  had  been  the  Con¬ 
cord  road  that  had  taken  a  lease  of  the  Northern,  and  the  lease 
had  been  set  aside,  just  as  it  has  been  ; — for,  mind  you,  the  de¬ 
cision  of  the  court  is  that  nobody  could  take  a  lease  —  not 
that  the  Lowell  could  not,  but  that  nobody  could  take  a  lease  ; — 
suppose  that  lease  had  been  set  aside :  would  Mr.  Stone 
come  here  and  say  the  Concord  did  not  take  that  lease  in  good 
faith,  because  somebody  objected  to  it?  Would  you  say,  be¬ 
cause  some  one  stockholder  objected  to  that  lease  to  the  Con¬ 
cord,  that  the  Concord  did  not  take  it  in  good  faith?  Now,  if, 
under  these  circumstances,  the  Concord  road  were  here  seeking 
to  have  this  legislature,  acting  as  a  court  of  equity,  cure  the 
defect  in  the  law,  and  that  road  restored  to  the  position  it  would 
have  been  in  had  there  not  been  such  a  defect ;  and  sup¬ 
pose,  then,  that  the  Boston  &  Maine,  or  the  Boston  &  Lowell, 
should  come  in  with  such  a  bill  as  the  Atherton  bill,  authorizing 
one  of  them  only  to  take  the  lease  :  would  not  the  Concord  be 
found  loudly  and  strenuously  protesting  against  such  a  proposi¬ 
tion,  and  indignantly  and  clamorously  denouncing  it,  and  ap¬ 
pealing  to  us  not  to  permit  it,  but  to  make  good  their  title 
which  they  had  honestly  taken,  and  would  not  their  protest  and 
appeal  be  heard  and  heeded?  Then  I  ask,  On  what  principle 
of  honor,  honesty,  or  fair  dealing  should  we  reject  the  claims 
of  the  Lowell  road  now,  when  they  stand  precisely  in  that  sit¬ 
uation  ?  And  is  it  not  most  unbecoming  and  dishonorable  for  the 
Concord  to  attempt  to  defeat  the  wishes  of  the  vast  majority  of 
the  Northern  stockholders,  and  to  disrupt  business  arrange¬ 
ments  which  the  Lowell  has  made  in  that  behalf,  and,  above  all, 
to  ask  the  state  to  repudiate  the  obligation  it  is  under  to  make 
good  the  contract  it  entered  into  with  the  Lowell  road  when  it 
authorized  it  and  any  other  “corporation  created  by  the  laws  of 
another  state  ”  to  avail  itself  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  of 
1883?  I  do  not  believe  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  is 
going  to  enter  on  any  such  despicable  and  dishonorable  course 
of  action  just  now. 


20 


[At  this  point  the  house  adjourned,  and  reassembled  at  2 
p.  m.,  when  Mr.  Branch  resumed  his  argument.] 

Mr.  Speaker  : — I  was  speaking  this  morning,  before  the  ad¬ 
journment,  in  regard  to  the  argument  of  good  faith,  and  espe¬ 
cially  called  your  attention  to  the  point  which  the  gentleman 
from  Laconia,  Mr.  Stone,  made  when  he  said  that  the  Boston 
&  Lowell  did  not  take  the  lease  of  the  Northern  in  good  faith 
because  Mr.  Dow  and  others  objected.  I  was  arguing  that  the 
objection  of  a  stockholder  is  not  the  test  of  good  faith,  and  as 
bearing  upon  that  point  I  would  like  to  have  some  one  tell  me, 
if  that  is  so,  if  the  objection  of  a  stockholder  to  a  lease  makes 
the  lease  mala  fide,  not  in  good  faith,  if  all  the  provisions  in  the 
Atherton  bill  which  provide  as  to  what  shall  be  done  in  case  a 
stockholder  objects,  are  not  mere  nonsense?  Are  they  going 
to  get  a  lease  in  good  faith  under  the  Atherton  bill  if  some  one 
objects  ? 

It  is  said  further,  conceding  that  the  Boston  &  Lowell  took  the 
lease  of  the  Northern  and  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  in 
good  faith,  they  are  not  in  any  position  to  complain  now,  be¬ 
cause  they  say,  and  the  minority  report  it,  that  they  have  vio¬ 
lated  their  agreement  with  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  bv 
making  an  assignment  of  that  lease  to  the  Boston  &  Maine. 
The  minority  report  states  that  in  terms, — that  the  Boston  & 
Lowell  has  leased  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  to  the  Bos¬ 
ton  &  Maine,  and  they  have  repeated  it  and  reiterated  it.  Gen¬ 
tlemen,  where  is  the  evidence  of  that  fact?  The  gentleman  from 
Nashua  says,  very  discreetly,  in  his  speech  upon  this  motion,  that 
the  “  chain  of  evidence  remains  to  be  completed.”  Well,  I 
should  say  the  chain  of  evidence  did  remain  to  be  completed — 
not  simply  the  chain,  but  the  first  link.  If  there  is  any  evidence 
that  the  Boston  &  Maine  has  leased  the  Boston  &  Lowell,  why 
did  n’t  the  minority  append  that  evidence  to  their  report?  There 
is  no  such  fact.  It  is  a  sheer  fabrication,  a  most  astonishing 
falsification.  That  the  Boston  &  Lowell  has  leased  itself  to  the 
Boston  &  Maine  does  not  carry  with  it  a  lease  of  the  Boston, 
Concord  &  Montreal.  Suppose  I  should  lease  my  farm  to  my 
friend  Mr.  Stone,  with  an  agreement  that  he  should  not  transfer 
that  lease  to  any  one  without  my  consent,  that  he  should  not 
sublet  it,  that  is,  let  a  part  of  it  without  my  consent :  that  is 


21 


precisely  the  terms  of  the  lease  of  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Mon¬ 
treal  to  the  Boston  &  Lowell — that  they  will  not  transfer  the 
lease  to  a  third  party  without  the  consent  of  the  Boston,  Con¬ 
cord  &  Montreal.  Now,  suppose  next  year  Mr.  Stone,  who 
has  a  farm,  should  let  his  farm  to  my  friend  Mr.  Morrill — 
let  his  own  farm  to  mv  friend  Mr.  Morrill :  would  anybody 
sav,  because  Mr.  Stone  had  leased  his  farm  to  Mr.  Morrill, 
that  he  had  also  leased  my  farm?  And  what  should  you  thiuk, 
gentlemen,  of  a  man  asserting  such  a  proposition  as  that?  And 
what  would  you  think  if  I  should  get  up  and  say,  Mr.  Stone  is 
nothing  but  a  “  beautiful  corpse,”  he  is  nothing  but  a  “  pauper 
corpse,”  is  nothing  but  a  “  shadow  of  his  former  self.”  That 
is  precisely  the  situation  in  regard  to  this  Boston,  Concord  & 
Montreal  Railroad.  Mr.  Mellen  testified  distinctly  that  the 
agreement  was  that  they  should  not  transfer  the  Boston,  Con¬ 
cord  &  Montreal  to  the  Boston  &  Maine  unless  the  directors  of 
.the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  consented  to  it.  Who  is  run¬ 
ning  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  to-day,  pray  tell  me? 
The  minority  complain  because  they  issued  an  order, — u  a  milita¬ 
ry  order,”  as  they  call  it, — instructing  every  employe  to  stand  by 
his  duty,  and  not  to  surrender  a  single  thing.  Does  that  look  as 
though  they  were  out  of  possession  of  it?  And  yet  the  minority 
complain  that  they  have  violated  their  lease  and  their  agreement 
because  the}7  have  abandoned  possession  of  it,  and  in  the  next 
breath  they  tell  us  they  have  issued  a  military  order  holding  it. 
Now  Mr.  Mellen  testified  distinctly  that  the  agreement  was  not 
to  lease  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  Railroad  without  the 
consent  of  its  directors.  Are  those  directors  going  to  transfer 
this  lease  to  the  Boston  &  Maine — these  men  who  are  also 
directors  in  the  Concord  road  and  members  of  the  “  old  veter¬ 
ans’  ”  relief  syndicate — these  men  that  have  been  standing  up 
here  for  three,  months,  frantically  and  hysterically  imploring 
this  legislature  to  keep  back  that  howling  monster,  the  Boston 
&  Maine,  from  this  peaceful  valley, — are  they  going  to  surrender 
the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  to  it,  and  betray  their  trust  as 
■the  special  and  heaven-appointed  guardians  of  the  welfare  of 
•this  state?  The  Boston  &  Maine  cannot  get  possession  of  it 
unless  they  consent.  And  are  they  going  to  consent  ?  I  wish 
somebody  would  find  out  whether  these  directors  of  the  Boston, 


22 


Concord  &  Montreal  are  going  to  deliver  their  road  over  to  the- 
Boston  &  Maine. 

Now,  gentlemen,  as  bearing  upon  this  syndicate  transaction,  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  statement  of  Judge  Bingham 
in  regard  to  that  matter.  And,  gentlemen,  I  claim  right  here 
that  the  leading  purpose  back  of  this  Atherton  bill  is  what  is 
contained  in  that  syndicate  :  because  it  is  absolutely  inconceiv¬ 
able  that  the  Concord  Railroad  would  ever  have  displayed  any 
such  spirit  and  activity  as  have  been  displayed  in  this  contest. 
Well,  what  did  Mr.  Kimball  say  in  regard  to  that  syndicate  pur¬ 
chase?  He  said  they  bought  that  stock,  these  twenty  men,  to 
control  it  in  the  interest  of  the  Concord  road,  and  that  thev  ex- 
pected  to  get  nothing  more  out  of  it  than  the  Boston  &  Lowell 
were  paying  as  rental,  which  was  three  hundred  thousand  dol¬ 
lars  a  year.  Now,  if  that  is  so,  that  they  expected  to  get  no 
more  out  of  it  than  the  Boston  &  Lowell  were  paying,  three  hun¬ 
dred  thousand  dollars  a  }7ear,  and  Judge  Bingham  says  it  is, 
can  any  one  tell  how  the  “  old  heroes  and  veterans  ”  are  going 
to  be  benefited  in  the  slightest  by  that  purchase  so  long  as 
it  did  not  change  the  rental  the  Boston  &  Lowell  was  paying? 
and  how  is  the  Atherton  bill  going  to  help  them  so  long  as  none 
of  the  “old  veterans  and  heroes,”  according  to  Mr.  Kimball, 
would  get  a  dividend  on  that  stock  “  within  the  lifetime  of  any 
of  the  members  of  that  svndicate,”  that  contains  so  robust  a 
young  man  as  Charles  A.  Busiel?  Now,  what  did  Judge  Bing¬ 
ham  sav?  He  says, — 

“The  facts  about  this  business  are,  that  twenty  gentlemen 
bought  out  the  stock  which  was  originally  owned  by  Mr.  Lyon 
and  Mr.  Bell  and  Mr.  Harlow, — twenty  of  them  bought  the 
stock  which  was  formerly  owned  by  three  or  four,  and  they  paid 
its  market  value  for  it ;  and  they  paid  for  it,  not  with  the  idea 
of  making  any  speculation, — there  was  not  a  man  in  that  whole 
crowd,  to  my  knowledge,  who  had  any  idea  of  speculation, — but 
the  idea  was  that  they  bought  it  at  a  price  where  it  was  safe  to 
buy  it,  calculating,  upon  a  lease  already  made  of  the  Boston, 
Concord  &  Montreal  road,  that  it  was  worth,  if  that  lease  was 
permitted  to  remain,  just  about  what  was  paid  for  it,  as  near  as 
they  could  calculate.  No  man  would  ever  have  bought  it  simply 
for  the  purpose  of  holding,  that  is,  none  of  these  men  would,. 


23 


but  they  bought  it  on  account  of  seeing  in  the  Massachusetts 
legislature  a  bill,  which  was  afterwards  passed  and  which  be¬ 
came  a  law,  and  which  was  then  pending  in  the  Massachusetts 
legislature  when  they  bought  the  stock.  *  *  * 

“Well,  then,  they  saw  this  act  pending  in  the  Massachusetts 
legislature,  which  afterward  became  a  law.  And  they  determined 
that  they  would  buy  this  stock  ;  and  they  did.  Well,  now,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  we  thought  we  would  fix  that  in  the  Atherton  bill  so 
that  no  mortal  man,  whatever  his  disposition  was,  would  have 
the  audacity  to  claim  that  the  Atherton  bill  made  any  better 
provision  for  the  old  stock  and  new  stock  than  existed  under 
the  old  state  of  things.  And  I  submit  that  nobody  for  a  single 
moment  who  will  look  at  that  bill  can  entertain  the  idea  that  it 
will  be  as  well  for  the  old  stock  and  the  new  stock  as  it  will  to 
let  the  road  remain  under  the  lease  to  the  Boston  &  Lowell.  *  * 

“  Well,  now,  to  put  an  end  to  all  that  sort  of  talk,  I  suggest 
here  that  so  far  as  the  syndicate  is  concerned,  so  far  as  the  Bos¬ 
ton,  Concord  &  Montreal  is  concerned,  you  may  strike  out  the 
latter  part  of  section  12  and  substitute  this:  That  from  the 
present  time  until  the  time  this  lease  would  expire,  which  would 
be  1983,  no  money  shall  be  paid  in  discharge  of,  or  upon,  the 
indebtedness  of  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  road,  or  upon 
its  stock,  except  a  sum  corresponding  to  the  rental  provided  in 
that  lease,  which  is  $300,000.  That  will  leave  the  Boston,  Con¬ 
cord  &  Montreal  road  with  nothing  to  be  expended  upon  it  as  it 
exists  now,  except  what  it  is  entitled  to  under  the  existing 
lease  ;  and  all  the  money  that  is  earned  to  go  to  the  lessor,  and 
the  syndicate  to  get  no  dividends  beyond  what  they  would  get 
if  it  should  remain  under  the  lease  that  was  intended  to  be 
taken.” 

That  is  the  deliberate,  studied,  authoritative  statement  of 
one  of  the  syndicate  and  the  senior  counsel  of  the  Concord 
road  :  the  statement  of  a  man  who  is  a  master  of  the  art  of  stat¬ 
ing  a  thing  so  guardedly  and  craftily  as  to  make  the  statement 
almost  invulnerable.  Well,  as  Jack  Bunsby  would  say,  “  the 
bearings”  of  this  statement  of  Judge  Bingham’s  “lays  in  the 
application  on  it.”  In  the  first  place,  you  remember  Judge 
Bingham  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  in  showing  up  what  he 
claimed  was  the  very  unsound  financial  condition  of  the  Lowell 


24 


road,  its  accumulated  debt,  contrasting  its  methods  of  doing 
business  with  those  of  the  Concord  that  went  on  “  the  plan  of 
pay  as  you  go,”  and  condemning  its  habit  of  buying  up  what  he 
called  “  worthless  roads,”  and  issuing  stock  and  bonds  in  pay¬ 
ment  ;  and  yet  no  sooner  did  Judge  Bingham  and  his  friends 
learn  that  a  bill  had  been  introduced  in  the  Massachusetts  leg¬ 
islature  confirming  the  lease  which  the  Lowell  had  taken  of  the 
Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal,  than  they  had  so  much  confidence 
in  the  Lowell  management  and  solvency  that  they  went  right  off 
and  bought  a  controlling  interest  in  that  Montreal  stock.  “  Not 
as  a  speculation” — perish  the  thought! — but  because  “it  was 
safe  to  buy  it,  calculating,  upon  the  lease  already  made,  that  it 
was  worth,  if  the  lease  was  permitted  to  remain,  just  about  what 
was  paid  for  it.”  That  was  in  May,  1886.  What  a  refutation 
is  there  in  this  single  statement  of  Judge  Bingham’s  of  all  his 
labored  argument,  in  which  he  endeavored  to  demonstrate  how 
unsafe  the  Lowell  road  is  iu  respect  to  its  finances  and  manage¬ 
ment.  Why,  they  jumped  for  that  stock  the  moment  they  saw 
the  bill  had  been  introduced,  and  were  willing  to  pay  $15  a 
share  for  the  old  stock  that  was  only  worth  $7  in  the  market. 
And  none  of  that,  according  to  Mr.  Kimball,  will  yield  a  divi¬ 
dend  to  the  “old  heroes”  within  the  lives  of  any  of  the  syndi¬ 
cate.  Further  than  this,  and  more  important  by  far,  is  the 
light  this  statement  throws  upon  the  claim  which  has  been  made 
here  and  insisted  upon,  and  pressed,  that  the  Lowell  road  had 
no  legal  right  to  lease  that  road  under  the  act  of  1883  ! — when 
Judge  Bingham  and  Judge  Minot,  and  their  associates,  were 
making  haste  to  buy  that  stock  in  the  Montreal  upon  the  suppo¬ 
sition  and  with  the  prospect  that  the  Lowell  lease  would  be  up¬ 
held  !  But  Judge  Bingham  says  that  it  would  be  better  for  the 
holders  of  the  old  and  new  stock  under  the  Lowell  lease  than 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Atherton  bill.  If  so,  what  becomes 
of  his  solicitude  for  the  old  “  heroes  and  veterans  ”  whom  he  is 
trying  to  deprive  of  the  advantage  of  the  Lowell  lease,  and  give 
them  the  lesser  benefits  of  the  Atherton  bill?  And  how  does  he 
reconcile  his  position  in  respect  to  issuing  bonds  by  the  Lowell 
in  payment  for  property  acquired,  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Atherton  bill,  by  which  the  Concord  Railroad  is  to  be  seduced 
from  its  virtuous  career  of  “  pay  as  you  go,”  and  to  issue  bonds 


25 


in  payment  of  and  to  carry  out  the  magnificent  projects  it  pro¬ 
fesses  to  have  in  contemplation  for  the  benefit  of  the  upper  part 
of  the  state?  Now  I  observe  that  the  minority  have  followed 
the  suggestion  of  Judge  Bingham,  and  have  stricken  out  of  the 
Atherton  bill  the  part  which  Judge  Bingham  proposed  should  be 
stricken  out.  And  you  will  notice  that  it  is  the  first  amendment , 
which  they  were  forced  to  make  early  in  the  session,  and  which 
they  seemed  to  think  would  give  an  appearance  of  great  fairness 
and  respectability  to  the  purposes  of  the  syndicate.  And  they 
have  substituted  this  new  one  in  place  of  the  first  one,  which  they 
have  had  to  abandon.  This  last  one  provides  for  dividends  upon 
the  old  and  common  stock,  not  exceeding  4  per  cent.,  and  the 
minority  say  these  dividends  would  begin  in  a  very  few  years. 
The  amendment,  like  the  first  one,  which  it  supplants,  is  a  con¬ 
fession  as  well  as  a  change.  It  is  a  confession  that  in  the  bill 
as  it  was  introduced  the  scheme  of  the  syndicate  had  been  en¬ 
tirely  concealed;  but  by  the  first  amendment  they  endeavored, 
since  they  were  compelled  to  bring  it  into  publicity,  to  dress  it 
up  as  attractively  as  its  uncomely  figure  would  permit,  but  hav¬ 
ing  failed  in  that,  their  latest  amendment  comes  as  a  reluctant 
and  tardy  confession  that  they  started  out  to  get  something  that 
they  wished  and  hoped  would  not  be  discovered  ;  and  now,  after 
their  imposition  has  been  thoroughly  exposed,  the}7  are  willing 
to  take  a  little,  if  you  will  only  please  be  so  kind  as  to  let  them 
have  that ! 

But  whv  this  terrible  distress  about  the  stockholders  of  the 
%/ 

Montreal  road?  They  were  satisfied  to  lease  their  road  to  the 
Lowell.  Not  one  of  them  protested  ;  and  under  the  amendment 
to  the  Colby  act  contained  in  the  Hazen  bill,  if  that  old  and 
common  stock  is,  or  might  be  prospectively,  worth  something, 
they  can  get  its  full  value  if  they  are  not  content.  And  so  long 
as  they  are  satisfied  with  the  Lowell  lease,  and  the  public  is  de¬ 
lighted,  why  should  any  one  want  to  change  the  arrangement  by 
having  the  Concord  pa\7  $300,000  a  year,  instead  of  letting  the 
Lowell  do  it,  as  it  agreed  ?  But  the  gentleman  from  Manches¬ 
ter  offered  several  challenges  here  the  other  day  ;  and  among 
other  things  he  challenged  anybody  to  show  how  the  old  and 
common  stock  in  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  road  is  going 
to  be  benefited  at  all  bv  the  Atherton  bill.  Well,  I  am  not 


26 


afraid  of  that  challenge.  If  he  wants  to  know,  or  anybody  else, 
he  can  find  out  by  looking  at  the  Atherton  bill,  section  11.  That 
was  the  one  they  amended  first,  and  they  abandoned  their 
amendment.  They  struck  out  that  amendment  and  substituted 
this  :  “And  it  is  further  provided,  that  whatever  interest  may  be 
saved  by  the  funding  and  refunding  of  the  indebtedness  of  the 
said  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  Railroad  should  be  first  used 
in  paying  a  dividend,  not  exceeding  4  per  cent.,  on  the  new 
stock  and  the  old  stock,  so  called,  of  said  Boston,  Concord  & 
Montreal  Railroad.”  There  is  where  they  get  it.  And  the  mi- 
nority  report  says,  on  page  6, — 

“The  adoption  of  the  Hazen  bill,  therefore,  would  emascu¬ 
late  the  resources  of  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  Railroad 
above  5  per  cent,  on  the  preferred  stock  of  $800,000,  while  the 
remainder  of  the  capital  stock,  amounting  to  $1,000,000,  would 
be  left  to  uncertain  recovery  for  years  to  come.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Atherton  hill  insures  an  early  dividend  on  this  stock.” 

Mr.  Sulloway  challenges  us  to  tell  where  there  is  anything  in 
the  Atherton  bill  that  will  give  these  gentlemen  any  dividend  on 
that  old  and  common  stock.  There  it  stands,  in  section  two, 
and  its  meaning  is  set  forth  in  the  minorit\7  report.  And  they 
say  they  will  get  those  dividends  within  a  very  short  time. 

But  the  mask  has  been  thrown  off.  The  avowal  has  been 
made.  The  real  purpose  of  the  Atherton  bill  has  been  confessed. 
The  gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Stone,  speaking  for  the  Con¬ 
cord  road,  tells  us  in  plain  English  that  which  we  had  all  along 
charged  and  they  persistently  denied,  that  the  chief  thing  sought 
to  be  accomplished  by  that  bill  is  to  take  the  present  and  future 
surplus  of  the  Concord  road,  which  is  the  property  of  the  state 
under  a  solemn  contract,  and  apply  it  to  the  enrichment  of  the 
Montreal,  and  to  the  carrying  out  of  the  most  insolent  and  crim¬ 
inal  piece  of  stock-jobber}7  ever  planned  or  purposed. 

Mr.  Stone — That  last  part  I  did  not  say. 

Mr.  Branch — It  is  to  be  a  marriage  !  The  rich,  aristocratic 
Concord  is  to  wed  the  impecunious  and  lowly  Montreal !  The 
love-making  commenced  in  May,  1886,  by  Judge  Bingham  and 
his  friends  when  they  bought  that  Montreal  stock.  The  engage¬ 
ment  is  announced:  we  are  invited  to  the  festivities.  “The 
funeral  baked  meats”  of  the  Lowell  are  to  “  set  forth  the  wed- 


27 


cling  dinner”  of  the  Concord.  Well,  gentlemen,  the  prosperous 
bridegroom,  the  Concord,  is  not  going  to  wed  the  Montreal  for 
her  money,  and  yet  it  is  a  marriage  for  money  ;  for  the  riches  of 
the  state,  which  the  Concord  holds  in  trust  for  the  state,  are  to 
be  embezzled  for  the  dowry  of  the  empty-handed  bride,  and  her 
husband  will  then  acquire  their  ownership  by  rule  of  common 
law.  I  have  heard  of  a  guardian’s  marrying  his  ward  to  get  her 
property  ;  but  I  never  before  heard  of  a  guardian’s  bestowing  it 
upon  his  sweetheart,  and  then  marrying  her  to  get  possession  of 
it.  [Applause.]  But  dropping  for  the  present  the  romantic 
figure  which  Mr.  Stone  has  chosen  to  illustrate  the  confessed 
purpose  of  this  syndicate,  let  us  look  at  it  for  a  moment  in  a 
somewhat  matter-of-fact  way  ;  and  I  ask  you,  What  earthly  ad¬ 
vantage  could  the  absorption  of  the  Montreal  by  the  Concord  be 
to  the  Concord  stockholders?  They  get  their  10  per  cent,  now, 
and  they  could  get  no  more  afterwards.  Is  it  not  as  plain  as 
day  that  the  only  advantage  is  to  the  other  road  and  to  the 
twenty  men  who  control  it?  The  plain  question  is,  Shall  we 
turn  the  surplus  wealth  of  the  Concord  that  belongs  to  the  state 
into  the  improvement  of  any  railroad  and  the  pockets  of  some 
speculators?  Suppose  we  did  that,  and  one  of  your  constituents 
should  ask  why  you  did  it,  you  would  have  to  say,  “Oh  !  so  the 
surplus  of  the  Concord  could  be  used  to  make  a  good  road  of 
the  Montreal.”  “But  that  surplus  belonged  to  the  state,”  says 
your  neighbor;  “why  did  you  take  the  state’s  money  for  that?” 
“Yes,”  you  say  ;  “but  the  Montreal  was  poor,  and  needed  it.” 
“But,”  says  your  neighbor,  “I  am  poor,  too.  My  taxes  are 
high  ; — why  was  not  that  money  used  to  pay  the  state’s  debt? 
Did  not  the  Lowell  propose  to  make  a  good  road  of  the  Mon¬ 
treal,  and  was  it  not  doing  it?”  “Yes,”  you  say;  “but  then 
the  syndicate  did  not  want  the  Lowell  to  have  it.  The  syndi¬ 
cate  said  the}7  wanted  “the  plum  in  the  Concord  road,”  and  we 
thought  we  would  let  them  have  it.”  That  is  the  proposition,  to 
take  the  money  of  the  state  to  help  a  single  road  and  to  enrich 
twenty  speculators,  when  we  might  have  the  Montreal  road  put 
in  proper  shape  without  aid  from  the  state,  and  have  this  sur¬ 
plus  in  the  treasury  of  the  state  besides.  Gentlemen,  instead 
of  asking  us  to  sanction  and  permit  any  such  monstrous,  in¬ 
cestuous  marriage  as  that  to  which  the  gentleman  has  invited  us. 


28 


he  should  rather  call  upon  us,  as  guardians  of  the  rights  and 
property  of  the  commonwealth,  and  in  her  name,  to  rise  in  our 
places  and  say,  “Gentlemen  of  the  syndicate,  we  forbid  the 
banns  !”  He  may  call  it  a  “  marriage  I  call  it  a  swindle  and 
a  steal !  [Applause.] 

There  is  another  point  upon  which  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words. 
It  is  said  that  a  lease  of  99  years  is  too  long ;  that  a  lease  for 
that  time  is  a  practical  sale.  Granted  :  but  some  company  has 
got  to  own  the  railroads  at  the  end  of  99  years  and  during  that 
period,  and  what  possible  difference  can  it  be  who  the  company 
is,  if  the  roads  are  run  satisfactorily  to  the  public  and  to  the 
stockholders  ?  The  real  ownership  of  every  road  in  the  country 
will  change  every  year,  because  the  stockholders  will  change, 
and  nothing  we  can  do  will  prevent  it.  Now,  the  fact  that  the 
improvements  upon  these  upper  roads  necessary  to  be  made  will 
require  large  outlay,  and  that  they  will  extend  over  some  years, 
clemauds  that  there  be  a  permanency  about  a  lease  that  will 
warrant  investments  of  so  permanent  a  character.  So  far  as 
the  stockholders  are  concerned,  it  makes  their  investment  much 
more  desirable  than  when  it  rests  upon  a  short  lease.  The  stocks 
and  bonds  of  railroads  under  long  leases  are  the  very  best  secu- 
rities  for  savings  institutions,  trustees,  for  men  and  women  to 
lay  by  for  old  age  or  for  their  children.  These  are  some  of  the 
reasons  in  favor  of  a  long  lease. 

Leases  for  99  years  are  the  rule.  Even  the  Concord  was  will¬ 
ing  to  lease  the  Portsmouth  for  99  years  ;  and  the  objection  now 
raised  is,  in  my  judgment,  absolutely  insincere.  When  the 
Atherton  bill  was  introduced,  it  provided  for  a  lease  of  the 
Northern  for  99  years.  It  has  been  amended,  providing  for  a 
thirty-year  lease,  and  now  the  supporters  of  the  Atherton  bill 
are  lugubriously  saying,  “Oh  !  a  lease  for  99  years  is  too  long — 
too  long  — but  has  any  one  of  them  undertaken  to  give  any 
firm  and  valid  reason  why  ?  Is  this  talk  anything  more  than  a 
cheap  and  shifty  diversion?  The  gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr. 
Stone,  says  a  lease  for  99  years  is  too  long  ;  but  the  only  reason 
he  pretended  to  give  why  it  is  too  long  was,  that  before  such  a 
lease  would  expire  we  and  our  children,  and  some  of  our  grand¬ 
children,  would  be  dead  !  But  the  marriage  of  the  Concord  to 
the  Montreal,  which  I  suppose  will  last  until  death  do  them  part, 


29 


seems  to  Mr.  Stone  a  most  alluring  and  charming  arrangement. 
The  bliss  of  the  union  doubtless  serves  to  make  the  time  seem 
short.  The  idea  of  a  ninety-nine-year  lease  sends  a  pang  of  dis¬ 
tress  to  the  bosom  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sul- 
loway,  and  he  proceeds  to  denounce  it  in  bursts  of  extravagant 
and  flamboyant  rhetoric.  But  is  not  this  revulsion  from  the 
policy  of  a  ninety-nine-year  lease  a  little  sudden  and  abrupt? 
I  should  like  to  know  if  they  are  really  honest  about  it,  and  op¬ 
pose  it  on  principle,  or  whether  they  have  taken  it  up  just  now 
as  a  convenient  dodge,  a  handy  deception,  for  this  special  emer¬ 
gency.  If  it  is  a  dodge,  a  deception,  it  requires  no  answer : 
exposure  of  it  is  enough  ; — but  if  the}-  oppose  a  ninety-nine- 
year  lease  on  principle,  their  opposition  is  entitled  to  consid¬ 
eration.  Are  they  opposing  it  on  principle?  If  they  are,  I  ask 
them  how  long  since  they  adopted  that  principle?  It  is  only  a 
few  days  since  that  this  legislature  passed  a  bill  increasing  the 
capital  of  the  Cheshire  road  $1,000,000,  and  providing  it  might 
lease  other  roads,  or  be  leased  by  other  roads,  within  or  without 
the  state,  for  a  period  of  99  years.  That  bill  was  reported 
unanimously  by  the  railroad  committee,  and  was  passed  without 
debate  or  roll-call.  Where  were  these  gentlemen  then  who  op¬ 
pose  a  ninety-nine-year  lease  now? 

Why  did  not  the  gentleman  from  Laconia  rise  up,  and  in 
measured,  impressive  tones  say, — “  Gentlemen,  your  hair  will 
have  silvered  over  and  you  will  have  gone  to  your  graves,  your 
children  will  have  grown  to  maturity  and  gone  to  their  long 
homes,  and  perhaps  your  grandchildren  will  have  gone  to  their 
long  homes,  before  this  lease  terminates?” 

Why  did  not  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  rush  to  the 
floor,  roused  and  incensed,  and  vehemently  and  dramatically 
denounce  the  bill  as  the  scheme  “of  stock-jobbers,  stock- 
waterers,  and  railroad  wreckers  ”  to  destroy  our  liberties  and 
the  liberties  of  our  children  and  our  children’s  children,  and  say 
that  the  consequences  of  such  a  bill  could  only  be  changed  “  by 
the  tramp  of  armed  men  ”  ?  [Applause.]  Where  was  their 
principle  then  ?  Where  is  their  consistency  now  ?  Does  any 
one  need  any  other  evidence  than  this  to  prove  that  this  new 
battle-shout  of  the  Concord  road,  like  that  about  “surrendering 
our  liberty”  and  “railroad  wreckers”  and  “invaders,”  is 


30 


nothing  but  windy  declamation  and  sanctimonious  cant?  [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

The  gentleman  from  Manchester  and  the  gentleman  from 
Laconia  stood  here  and  argued  to  you  the  other  day,  as  a  propo¬ 
sition  of  law,  that  if  we  passed  the  Hazen  bill  we  have  so  legis¬ 
lated  the  railroad  question  out  of  the  state’s  control  that  we 
cannot  touch  it  for  ninety-nine  years.  And  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester  says  that  if  anybody  disputes  that  proposition  he 
will  bury  him  under  an  avalanche  of  authorities  so  deep  that 
the  trump  of  Gabriel  will  not  reach  him.  Gentlemen,  I  am  not 
so  old  a  lawyer  as  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  but  I  do 
not  shrink  at  all  from  that  avalanche.  So  far  from  his  having 
any  avalanche,  I  say  he  has  not  got  a  flake  of  authority  that 
will  back  up  any  such  proposition  as  that. 

It  is  argued  that  we  cannot  do  it  because  it  would  impair  the 
obligation  of  a  contract.  The  gentleman  from  Laconia  says, 
that  under  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  any  attempt  after  we  pass  this  law  would  be  to  impair 
the  obligations  of  a  contract.  Well,  it  is  no  doubt  true  that 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States  will  not  allow  any  state 
legislature  to  impair  the  obligation  of  a  contract,  and  it  is  un¬ 
doubtedly  true  that  when  a  legislature  passes  a  law  of  any  kind 
and  anybodv  acts  under  it,  there  is  a  contract  between  the  state 
and  the  person  who  acquires  the  benefits  of  that  contract. 

When  the  famous  Dartmouth  College  case  was  decided,  it  was 
intimated  there  by  Judge  StoiT  that  if  states  wanted  to  pre¬ 
serve  their  right  to  repeal  any  statute  which  was  passed,  they 
must  include  within  the  statute  a  repealing  clause  :  they  must 
say  that  that  act  was  subject  to  be  amended,  altered,  or  re¬ 
pealed  at  any  time  by  the  legislature.  And  accordingly,  in 
1831,  the  state  of  Massachusetts  passed  a  law  which  provided, 
whenever  a  corporation  was  formed,  that  any  law  forming 
the  corporation  was  subject  to  be  amended,  altered,  or  repealed 
at  any  time,  so  that  in  case  they  should  pass  a  law  and  should 
neglect  to  put  in  that  repealing  clause,  they  would  be  perfectly 
safe  under  this  general  clause.  And  the  state  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  did  the  same  thing.  You  will  find  the  law  on  page  353  of 
the  general  laws. 

“  The  legislature  may  at  any  time  alter,  amend,  or  repeal  the 


31 


charter  or  annul  the  powers  of  any  corporation,  whenever  the 
public  good  shall  require  the  same.” 

Accordingly  we  find  that  in  every  statute  that  is  passed  it  is 
provided  that  the  legislature  may  at  any  time  amend,  alter,  or 
repeal  it ;  and  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  says  that 
that  provision  is  a  part  of  the  contract ,  and  anybody  that  un¬ 
dertakes  to  avail  himself  of  that  contract  must  take  the  whole 
of  it.  So  if,  under  the  Hazen  bill,  or  any  general  railroad  law, 
or  under  the  Atherton  bill,  anything  should  be  done,  and  at  any 
time  the  legislature  should  think  best  to  amend  it,  they  can 
amend  it  under  the  saving  clause  of  our  statute,  and  under  the 
saving  clause  in  the  general  railroad  law,  or  in  the  Hazen  bill, 
or  in  the  Atherton  bill. 

Now  this  matter  has  been  decided  by  the  supreme  court  of 
the  United  States  over  and  over  again.  And  the  first  case  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  is  reported  in  105  U.  S.  13,  a 
case  that  went  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  from 
the  district  of  Massachusetts.  It  was  decided  bv  Mr.  Justice 
Miller,  and  in  his  opinion  he  says, — 

“It  was  no  doubt  with  a  view  to  suggest  a  method  by  which 
the  state  legislatures  could  retain  in  a  large  measure  this  im¬ 
portant  power,  without  violating  the  provision  of  the  federal 
•constitution,  that  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  his  concurring  opinion 
in  the  Dartmouth  College  case,  suggested  that  when  the  legisla¬ 
ture  was  enacting  a  charter  for  a  corporation,  a  provision  in  the 
statute  reserving  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  amend  or  repeal 
it  must  be  held  to  be  a  part  of  the  contract  itself,  and  the  sub¬ 
sequent  exercise  of  the  right  would  be  in  accordance  with  the 
contract,  and  could  not,  therefore,  impair  its  obligation.  And 
he  cites  with  approval  the  observation  we  have  already  quoted 
from  the  case  of  Wales  v.  Stetson ,  2  Mass.  143.  *  *  * 

“The  history  of  the  reservation  clause  in  acts  of  corporation 
supports  our  proposition  that  whatever  right,  franchise,  or  power 
in  the  corporation  depends  for  its  existence  upon  the  granting 
clauses  of  the  charter  is  lost  by  its  repeal.  *  *  * 

“  It  was  therefore  in  the  power  of  the  Massachusetts  legisla¬ 
ture  to  grant  to  another  corporation,  as  it  did,  the  authority  to  op¬ 
erate  a  street  railroad  through  the  same  streets  and  over  the  same 
ground  previously  occupied  by  the  Marginal  company.  *  * 


32 


“  To  this  there  can  be  no  valid  objection.  The  property  of 
corporations,  even  including  their  franchises,  when  that  is  neces¬ 
sary,  may  be  taken  for  public  use  under  the  power  of  eminent 
domain,  on  making  due  compensation. ” 

And  in  another  case,  in  96  U.  S.  499,  which  was  Railroad 
Company  v.  State  of  Maine ,  two  railroad  companies  by  their 
charter  were  protected  against  taxation  beyond  a  certain  amount. 
By  a  subsequent  act  of  the  legislature  they  were  allowed  to 
consolidate  into  one  company  ;  and  after  they  consolidated  into 
this  one  company,  the  legislature  undertook  to  pass  a  law  which 
would  tax  them  more  than  they  were  taxed  before  they  consoli¬ 
dated.  And  they  said,  you  cannot  impair  the  obligation  of  our 
contract.  It  was  agreed  in  our  original  charter  that  we  should 
not  be  taxed  beyond  one  half  of  one  per  cent.  But  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States  said  that  when  these  two  companies 
consolidated  they  consolidated  under  that  general  law  which 
permitted  them,  and  then  they  came  within  the  purview  and 
scope  of  that  new  law  ;  and  so  long  as  the  new  law  did  not  con¬ 
tain  any  clause  which  limited  the  amount  of  their  taxes,  the  leg¬ 
islature  had  a  perfect  right  to  tax  them  as  much  as  they  pleased. 
The  court  savs, — 

“  The  act  of  the  legislature  of  Maine  of  1856,  authorizing  two 
or  more  corporations  to  consolidate  and  form  a  new  corpo¬ 
ration,  was  an  act  of  corporation  of  the  new  company ;  and  the 
latter,  upon  its  formation,  became  at  once  subject  to  the  provi¬ 
sion  of  the  general  law  of  1831  (which  is  the  same  as  our  law), 
which  declared  that  any  act  of  incorporation  subsequently  pass¬ 
ed  should  at  all  times  thereafter  be  liable  to  be  amended,  altered, 
or  repealed,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature,  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner  as  if  an  express  provision  to  that  effect  were  therein  contain¬ 
ed,  unless  there  shall  have  been  inserted  in  such  act  of  incorpo¬ 
ration  an  express  limitation  or  provision  to  the  contrary.” 

Now,  gentlemen,  these  are  the  decisions  of  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States,  which  are  to  this  effect,  that  where  we  have 
a  general  saving  clause,  as  I  have  read  to  you,  or  where  we  have 
a  special  enactment  in  any  law  under  which  corporate  rights  are 
granted,  that  becomes  a  part  of  the  contract,  and  the  state  may 
at  any  time  amend,  alter,  or  repeal  it  as  it  pleases. 

But  even  supposing  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  should  grant 


33 


away  its  right  to  amend,  alter,  or  repeal  a  law  of  that  descrip¬ 
tion,  I  say  they  have  still  a  remedy  which  goes  farther  than  any 
repealing  clause  of  a  statute.  We  have  heard  oftentimes  of  the 
expressions  “eminent  domain,”  “the  right  of  eminent  domain.” 
What  do  we  mean  by  that?  We  mean  that  every  man  holds  his 
property  of  every  kind  subject  to  the  right  of  the  state  to  take 
it  whenever  the  state  thinks  fit  or  proper,  and  devote  it  to  a  pub¬ 
lic  use.  All  property,  it  makes  no  difference  what  it  is,  rail¬ 
roads  or  anything  else,  is  subject  to  be  taken  by  the  state  un¬ 
der  the  right  of  eminent  domain.  When  they  lay  out  a  railroad 
through  the  exercise  of  that  power,  they  go  right  on  to  a  man’s 
land,  survey  the  route,  and  if  he  objects  to  the  amount  they 
propose  to  give  him,  he  appeals  to  the  court,  and  his  damages 
are  assessed.  A  man’s  property  can  be  taken  for  any  public 
purpose.  If  you  wanted  to  lay  out  a  new  railroad,  you  could 
take  the  property  of  a  railroad  company  the  same  as  of  an  indi¬ 
vidual.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  state,  in  its  exercise  of  the 
right  of  eminent  domain,  to  take  every  single  railroad  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  and  form  a  new  company.  You  cannot 
divest  the  state  of  that  right.  It  is  something  which  inheres  in 
the  sovereignty  of  the  state.  No  legislature  can  barter  it  away. 
Does  anybody  deny  that  proposition  ?  I  am  not  going  to  bury 
him  under  an  avalanche  if  he  does  ;  but  I  would  like  to  read  for 
his  instruction  a  few  fragments  from  Cooley’s  Constitutional 
Limitations,  and  see  how  it  jibes  with  the  preposterous  law  that 
has  been  asserted  here  upon  this  floor.  I  read  from  page  536  : 
“Every  species  of  property” — and  I  take  it  that  includes  rail¬ 
roads — “  which  may  become  necessary  for  the  public  use,  and 
which  the  government  cannot  appropriate  under  any  other  recog¬ 
nized  right,  is  subject  to  be  seized  and  appropriated  under  the 
right  of  eminent  domain.  Lands  for  the  public  ways  ;  timber, 
stone,  and  gravel  to  make  and  improve  the  public  ways  ;  a  build¬ 
ing  that  stands  in  the  way  of  a  contemplated  improvement,  or 
which  for  any  other  reason  it  is  necessary  to  take,  remove,  or 
destroy  for  the  public  good  ;  streams  of  water,  corporate  fran¬ 
chises,  and  generally,  it  may  be  said,  legal  and  equitable  rights 
of  every  description,  are  liable  to  be  appropriated.” 

We  have  got  within  the  sovereignty  of  the  state  a  power  that 

no  legislature  can  barter  away,  because  no  legislature  can  barter 
3 


34 


away  the  sovereignty  of  the  state.  That  is  the  right  of  eminent 
domain. 

Now,  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  had 
something  to  say  on  that.  You  will  find  it  in  Backus  v.  Leba¬ 
non,  11  N.  H.  19,  and  I  will  ask  the  clerk  to  read  the  sylla¬ 
bus. 

The  clerk  read  as  follows  : 

“  A  charter  granting  to  certain  individuals  the  right  to  organ¬ 
ize  and  form  a  corporation,  with  power  to  construct  a  turnpike 
road,  take  tolls,  etc.,  is  a  contract,  within  the  protection  of  the 
clause  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  prohibiting  the 
several  states  from  passing  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts. 

“  But  this  does  not  exempt  the  property  of  the  corporation, 
including  the  franchise,  from  the  power  of  eminent  domain,  or 
from  contributing  like  other  property  to  the  public  burdens. 

“  It  does  not  impair  the  obligation  of  the  contract  to  take  the 
property  for  public  use,  even  if  the  powers  of  the  corporation 
are  thereby  suspended,  or  the  corporation  itself  in  fact  dissolved. 

“  The  construction  of  a  turnpike  road,  by  a  corporation  char¬ 
tered  for  that  purpose,  does  not  preclude  the  exercise  of  the 
powder  of  eminent  domain,  in  providing  for  a  free  public  high¬ 
way  over  the  same  ground. 

“  Nor  will  a  provision  in  the  charter  of  the  turnpike  corpo¬ 
ration,  by  which  the  state  reserves  the  right  to  purchase  the  prop¬ 
erty,  after  a  certain  period,  at  a  certain  price,  prevent  the  legis¬ 
lature  taking  the  property  for  a  public  highway  in  the  ordinary 
mode. 

“  It  is  not  necessary,  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent 
domain,  that  there  should  be  a  special  act  of  the  legislature  in 
each  particular  case.  It  may  be  exercised  through  the  action  of 
general  laws,  and  of  judicial  tribunals.” 

Thus  you  see,  gentlemen,  that  the  supreme  court  of  the  United 
States,  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and 
this  eminent  law  writer,  Judge  Cooley,  with  all  the  citations 
there  found,  say  that  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  state 
at  an}7  time  may  take  any  railroad  franchise,  or  any  railroad 
company  or  property  of  any  sort,  and  turn  it  over  to  any  new 
company,  if  in  their  judgment  they  think  the  public  needs  de- 


35 


mand  it ;  and  nobody  can  question  the  judgment  or  right  of  the 
legislature  to  do  it. 

CD 

Now,  I  always  like  to  prove  a  thing  out  of  the  mouths  of  my 
enemies,  if  I  can.  And  I  think  I  can  prove  that  all  of  this  stuff 
which  they  have  been  getting  off  here  in  regard  to  the  state  be¬ 
ing  precluded  and  estopped  for  ninety-nine  years  is  a  pretence 
and  a  sham.  They  say,  “  Gentlemen,  this  is  a  very  solemn  and 
momentous  occasion.  We  are  going  to  do  something  here  which 
•cannot  be  changed  for  ninety-nine  years.”  If  you  will  look  at 
section  8  of  the  Atherton  bill  you  will  fiud  that  they  propose 
right  there  to  exercise  the  right  of  eminent  domain  : 

“  Sec.  8.  If  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Montreal  shall  be  united 
with  any  other  road  or  roads  under  the  provision  of  section  1, 
and  at  the  time  of  such  union  any  person  or  corporation  shall 
have,  or  claim  to  have,  a  lease  of  the  Boston,  Concord  &  Mon¬ 
treal  Railroad,  the  corporation  formed  under  section  1  may  nev¬ 
ertheless  take  full  possession  of,  hold,  and  use  said  Boston, 
Concord  &  Montreal  Railroad,  upon  making  compensation  as 
hereinafter  provided.” 

Right  here  in  the  Atherton  bill  they  are  proposing  to  exercise 
this  extraordinary  right  of  eminent  domain,  and  take  the  Bos¬ 
ton,  Concord  &  Montreal  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Boston  & 
Lowell  and  turn  it  over  to  the  newly  formed  corporation.  What 
do  you  think  of  lawyers  standing  up  here  and  telling  us  that  the 
passage  of  one  of  these  acts  prevents  the  state  from  ever  doing 
anything,  while  right  in  that  very  bill  they  are  proposing  to  re¬ 
sort  to  the  extraordinary  remedy  of  which  nobody  can  divest 
the  state  or  prevent  the  state  from  exercising. 

While  I  am  on  this  point  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
another  legal  proposition.  The  gentleman  from  Nashua,  in  his 
first  speech,  gave  it  as  his  legal  opinion  that  this  Hazen  bill  is 
unconstitutional ;  and  he,  with  others,  has  argued  in  that  way 
because  it  is  an  attempt,  as  he  says,  to  make  valid  an  invalid 
contract.  Mr.  Sulloway  says  it  is  a  mandate  to  the  supreme 
court,  telling  them  how  they  shall  decide  a  case.  What  does  it 
say?  It  says  simply  this,  that  this  act  shall  be  construed  as 
authorizing  the  Boston  &  Lowell  to  lease  these  roads.  Does  it 
say  that  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  shall 
decide  this  case  differently  from  what  they  have?  Why,  gen- 


36 


tlemeo,  if  you  will  turn  to  the  first  page  of  the  General  Laws 
of  New  Hampshire  you  will  find  a  long  chapter  there  which 
goes  on  to  define  what  certain  words  shall  mean.  For  in¬ 
stance,  it  says  the  words  “  spirit,  spirituous  liquor,”  or  44  intox¬ 
icating  liquor,”  shall  be  intended  to  mean  all  spirituous  or  in¬ 
toxicating  liquor  and  all  mixed  liquors,  etc.  It  says  the  words 
44  published,  publishing,”  or  44  publication,”  shall  be  intended 
publication  in  a  newspaper  circulated  in  the  vicinity  ;  and  so  on 
for  a  whole  chapter,  declaring  how  certain  words  shall  be  con¬ 
strued.  Is  that  an  infringement  upon  the  prerogative  of  the 
supreme  court?  So  this  bill  says  that  the  Colby  act  shall  be 
construed  to  include  the  Boston  &  Lowell  within  its  purview. 
It  is  simply  making  clear  beyond  any  question  what  has  been 
attempted  to  be  obscured  here,  so  there  shall  not  be  any  ques¬ 
tion  about  it  in  the  future.  That  is  all  it  means.  It  is  no  di¬ 
rection  to  the  supreme  court.  And  if  it  were  a  direction,  this 
is  the  supreme  judicial  tribunal  of  the  state,  and  if  we  choose 
to  dictate  to  the  supreme  court  in  this  way  we  have  a  constitu¬ 
tional  right  to  do  it. 

Now,  they  say  it  is  proposed  to  make  valid  an  invalid  con¬ 
tract,  and  that  a  law  of  that  sort  is  unconstitutional.  Well,  I 
don’t  know  but  I  will  get  an  avalanche  on  this.  I  will  read 
again  from  ‘‘Cooley’s  Constitutional  Limitations.”  44  On  the 
same  principle,  legislative  acts  validating  invalid  contracts  have 
been  sustained.  When  these  acts  go  no  further  than  to  bind  a 
party  by  a  contract  which  he  has  attempted  to  enter  into,  but 
which  was  invalid  by  reason  of  personal  disability  on  his  part  to 
make  it,  or  through  neglect  of  some  legal  formality,  or  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  some  ingredient  in  the  contract  forbidden  by  law, 
they  cannot  well  be  obnoxious  to  constitutional  objections.” 

This  you  will  find  on  page  375.  On  page  376  he  says, — 

44  The  case  of  Goshen  v.  Stonington  was  regarded  as  sufficient 
authority  to  support  this  law  ;  and  the  principle  derived  from 
that  case  is  stated  to  be,  ‘that  where  a  statute  is  expressly  retro¬ 
active,  and  the  object  and  effect  of  it  is  to  correct  an  innocent 
mistake,  remedy  a  mischief,  execute  the  intention  of  the  parties, 
and  promote  justice,  then  both  as  a  matter  of  right  and  of  pub¬ 
lic  policy  affecting  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  community,  the 
law  should  be  sustained.’ 


37 


“We  have  already  referred  to  the  case  of  contracts  by  mu¬ 
nicipal  corporations,  which,  when  made,  were  in  excess  of  their 
authority,  but  subsequently  have  been  confirmed  by  legislative 
action.  If  the  contract  was  one  which  the  legislature  might  orig¬ 
inally  have  authorized ,  the  case  falls  within  the  rule  we  have 
laid  down,  and  the  legislative  action  is  to  be  sustained. 

“In  none  of  the  cases  to  which  we  have  referred  is  it  of  any 
importance  that  the  legislative  act  which  cures  the  defect  was 
passed  after  suit  brought,  in  which  the  invalidity  was  sought  to 
be  taken  advantage  of.  The  bringing  of  suit  vests  no  right  to 
a  particular  decision  ;  and  the  case  must  be  determined  on  the 
law  as  it  stands  when  the  judgment  is  rendered.” 

Does  anybody  dispute  the  proposition  that  it  was  within  the 
power  of  the  legislature  of  1883  to  correct  this  defect  in  this 
law?  Nobody  will  deny  that.  And  if  it  was  a  defect  which  they 
might  have  corrected ,  then  this  legislature  may  note  pass  cm  act 
correcting  that  defect ,  and  in  that  way  make  valid  contracts  that 
are  invalid  by  reason  of  that  defect. 

Gentlemen,  is  n’t  it  perfectly  manifest  from  these  decisions  of 
the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  on  all  these  points,  that 
these  propositions  have  no  foundation  whatever,  and  are  not 
the  “ragged  follies”  of  the^  legal  pretensions  “stripped 
naked  as  at  their  birth”?  If  the  gentleman  from  Manchester 
lias  got  any  avalanche,  I  bid  him  let  that  avalanche  slide.  I  think 
I  will  have  pretty  good  company  under  that  avalanche  when 
Gabriel  is  sounding  his  trump,  and  Brother  Sulloway  is  on  the 
other  side  of  Jordan  hobnobbing  with  my  friend  Samuel  B. 
Page.  [Applause.] 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  passage  of  the  Hazen  bill 
is  demanded  as  a  measure  which  completes  the  policy  adopted 
by  the  state  in  the  enactment  of  the  general  railroad  law  ;  that 
it  is  demanded  as  an  act  of  good  faith  and  honor  on  the  part  of 
the  state  towards  the  Lowell  road  and  towards  the  stockholders 
of  the  Northern  and  Montreal.  Now,  upon  plain,  simple,  eco¬ 
nomic  principles,  and  as  matter  of  ordinary  business,  I  claim  it 
should  be  passed.  Supposing  both  of  these  contestants  stood 
on  equal,  equitable  grounds  :  the  inquiry  then  is,  Which  of  the 
two.  judging  from  their  past  history  and  present  attitude,  is  the 
more  likely  to  have  the  disposition  to  serve  the  people  of  the 


38 


state  well?  aud  which  of  the  two  is  in  the  more  advantageous- 
position  to  do  so?  In  the  first  place,  we  may  as  well  recognize 
the  fact  that  no  railroad  will  be  run  simply  as  a  public  benefac¬ 
tor.  The  Boston  &  Maine  and  the  Lowell  are  not  managed  and 
will  not  be  managed  by  archangels,  any  more  than  the  Concord 
has  been  and  is  managed  b}T  seraphs.  I  am  aware,  too,  of  the 
fact  that  has  been  so  solemnly  asserted  here  so  many  times  by 
counsel  for  the  Concord  road,  that  men  die  and  the  management 
of  corporations  changes.  But,  gentlemen,  I  hold,  nevertheless, 
that  the  methods,  the  traditions,  and  the  policy  of  a  corporation 
are  impressed  upon  its  managers  as  they  succeed  one  another,, 
and  that  a  railroad  company  acquires  in  some  sense  a  character, 
which  abides  with  it  and  distinguishes  it.  The  Boston  &  Maine 
and  Lowell  have  always  had  the  reputation  of  being  on  the 
whole  well  managed  companies.  They  have  been  run  on  busi¬ 
ness  principles,  and  have  seemed  to  recognize  the  truth  that  the 
way  a  railroad  gets  business  is  by  making  business  and  not  by 
killing  it.  They  have  been  enterprising,  alert,  progressive. 
They  have  made  mistakes,  no  doubt,  but,  generally  speaking,, 
they  have  been  uncommonly  well  conducted  roads,  and  tlieir 
standing  to-day,  as  it  always  has  been,  is  that  of  first-class 
companies.  Mr.  Stone  says  “*the  Boston  &  Maine  has  been  a 
magnificent  road  in  the  past.  Its  management  in  the  past  has 
been  like  the  management  of  the  Concord  road,  so  far  as  being 
conservative  and  saving  money  is  concerned.”  The  gentleman 
from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sulloway,  I  know,  says  that  the  Boston 
&  Maine  and  the  Lowell  are  conducted  in  a  most  reckless  and 
dangerous  manner.  He  asserted  over  and  over  again  that  they 
take  the  earnings  of  those  roads  and  put  them  in  their  pockets, 
and  then  issue  stocks  to  pa\7  running  expenses  ;  that  this  is  the 
financial  system  that  prevails  with  those  roads.  But  did  he 
produce  a  particle  of  evidence  in  support  of  that  assertion?  Not 
a  particle.  Did  he  cite  a  single  instance  where  that  has  been 
done?  Not  one.  It  was  all  bald  and  baseless  assertion.  Why, 
gentlemen,  if  such  a  policy  as  this  were  pursued,  who  would  buy 
the  stocks  in  those  roads?  Whom  do  they  sell  them  to?  They  are 

worth  to-day  $220  and  $160  in  the  market.  Whom  do  thev  find 
^  «/ 

to  buy  those  stocks  at  these  prices?  If  the  stocks  of  these  roads 
are  ground  out  in  the  lawless  and  reckless  way  the  gentleman 


39 


so  graphically  described,  is  it  not  strange  that  they  can  get  any¬ 
body  to  buy  them  ?  Who  is  it  that  ventures  to  take  such  stocks 
at  these  prices,  with  such  a  management  as  that?  Is  not  the  fact 
that  the  stocks  of  these  roads  maintain  these  large  prices  posi¬ 
tive  proof  that  this  statement  of  the  gentleman  is  absolutely 
groundless  ? 

The  Concord  road  has  always  been  well  managed,  so  far  as 
making  money  goes  ;  but  its  character,  methods,  and  habits  and 
traditions,  from  the  commencement  to  this  moment,  so  far  as 
their  patrons  were  concerned,  have  been  of  a  kind  that  may  ap¬ 
propriately  be  described  by  the  one  word  sordid.  Its  location 
was  such  as  to  relieve  it  of  the  necessity  of  being  energetic  and 
accommodating  ;  for  whatever  might  be  the  condition  of  busi¬ 
ness  elsewhere,  the  stream  of  trade  and  travel  brought  along  by 
the  confluent  roads  above  and  below  it  was  compelled  to  pour 
through  its  banks,  and  made  sure  and  certain  sufficient  income 
for  large  dividends  and  an  accumulating  surplus.  It  seemed  to 
have  a  genius  for  greed  and  a  predisposition  for  selfishness  from 
the  start :  for  it  was  expressly  provided  in  its  charter  that  no 
parallel  road  should  be  built  for  thirty7  years,  and  its  fortunate 
environment  naturally  made  it  indifferent,  illiberal,  overbearing, 
and  hard.  The  charge  of  the  servant  against  his  lord,  “  I  knew 
thee  that  thou  art  a  hard  man,  reaping  where  thou  has  not  sown 
and  gathering  where  thou  hast  not  strewn,”  is  one  which  aptly 
applies  to  this  road. 

And  I  affirm,  as  a  general  proposition,  that  its  dealings  with 
other  roads  have  been  without  the  slightest  purpose  of  serving 
the  public  better,  or  increasing  traffic,  but  only  with  a  view  to 
making  the  current  of  its  income  flow  full  and  flush  without  ef¬ 
fort  of  its  own.  It  projected  the  Hillsborough  and  Bradford 
roads,  not  for  the  purpose  of  helping  that  part  of  the  state,  but 
to  cut  off  and  destroy  the  North  Weare  road,  which,  through 
manifold  difficulties,  was  slowly  creeping  up  the  Piscataquog 
valley  and  opening  a  new  route  from  Boston  to  the  Connecticut 
valley  and  Vermont.  Its  managers  forced  that  road  into  bank¬ 
ruptcy  ;  got  possession  of  it  under  foreclosure  ;  smuggled  an 
infernal  clause  into  the  belly  of  a  law  which  they  claimed  gave 
them  the  right  to  discontinue  the  road  ;  and  crowned  the  iniquity 
one  Sabbath  day  by  an  act  of  vandalism  that  reads  like  a  tale 


40 


of  Attila  and  his  Huns.  Judge  Bingham  says  they  bought  it 
out  of  the  surplus,  and  that  ever  since  they  have  let  the  public 
have  the  use  of  it  without  charging  them  a  single  cent.  Well, 
that  is  news  indeed  to  the  people  living  along  that  road.  The 
Concord  road  paid  $55,000  for  half  of  that  road  and  $195,000 
worth  of  bonds  ;  and  the  other  half,  that  belonged  to  the  estate 
of  Governor  Gilmore,  they  snatched  from  the  creditors  of  Gil¬ 
more  for  a  claim  against  him  of  $64,000,  and  left  the  rest  of  the 
creditors  out  in  the  cold.  That  was  how  they  got  it  and  paid 
for  it.  Judge  Cross  says  that  they  bought  it  “  to  help  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Goffstown  and  Weare.”  Great  heavens!  After  destroy¬ 
ing  their  road  and  sinking  all  they  put  into  it,  they  say  they  got 
it  to  help  the  people  of  Goffstown  and  Weare.  It  reminds  me 
of  the  man  out  in  California  who  shot  his  companion  to  get  his 
gold,  and  he  had  such  au  exquisite  sense  of  the  proprieties  and 
courtesies  of  society  that  he  then  took  the  dead  man’s  flask 
from  his  pocket,  and  in  silence  took  a  drink  out  of  respect  for 
the  memory  of  the  deceased  !  [Applause.] 

Why,  gentlemen,  they  ran  but  one  mixed  train  a  day  over 
that  road,  with  one  brakeman,  for  twenty  years,  and  it  was  so 
unsafe  that  people  were  afraid  to  ride  on  it,  aud  men  accustomed 
to  travel  over  it  made  their  wills  and  bade  their  wives  and  chil¬ 
dren  good-bye.  [Laughter.]  About  fifteen  years  ago  they 
commenced,  after  long  urging  and  imploring,  to  run  two  trains 
a  day,  and  charged  sixty  cents  fare  from  North  Weare  to  Man¬ 
chester,  nineteen  miles,  and  from  $10  to  $12  per  car  for  wood 
and  lumber.  They  squeezed  the  wrood  and  lumber  trade  so  dry 
that  green  wood  would  almost  season  in  going  from  Weare  to 
Manchester.  [Laughter.]  And  when,  in  1859,  a  bill  was  in¬ 
troduced  here,  looking  towards  making  some  restitution  to  the 
stockholders  of  that  road  and  redressing  their  wrongs, — men 
who  had  put  their  scanty  savings  into  it,  and  some  of  whom  are 
poor  to-day  by  reason  of  it, — the  Concord  road  bought  up  the 
representative  from  Weare  who  introduced  the  bill,  killed  it, 
aud  the  next  year  the  man,  in  a  public  speech  in  Weare,  ac¬ 
knowledged  it,  and  told  the  people  just  how  much  he  was  paid. 
They  ripped  up  the  road  from  Candiato  Pembroke,  and  so  forced 
the  coal  supply  of  the  central  and  northern  part  of  the  state 
around  by  Manchester.  They  used  the  Acton  road,  according 


41 


to  the  report  of  the  Massachusetts  railroad  commission  of  1878, 
simply  as  an  instrument  for  forcing  hard  contracts  out  of  the 
Lowell,  and  after  they  had  got  the  contracts  they  ran  but  one 
mixed  train  a  day  over  the  road  ;  and  the  commissioners  say  it 
was  just  sufficient  to  keep  a  stage-coach  off  the  line.  The  mon¬ 
strous,  high-handed  performance  by  which  it  forced  freights 
from  the  Northern  and  Montreal  roads  over  the  Lowell,  by  which 
it  damaged  those  roads  to  the  extent  of  $250, 000,  and  took 
$400,000  itself  out  of  the  people  besides,  has  already  been  dis¬ 
cussed.  It  is  now  in  litigation,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  one 
main  reason  why  it  desires  the  passage  of  the  Atherton  bill  is 
to  get  these  roads,  so  that  they  can  make  no  leases  with  any 
other  road,  and  then  compel  them  to  abandon  their  suit  as  a 
condition  ;  for  you  see,  gentlemen,  that  there  is  nothing  com¬ 
pulsory  about  this  consolidation.  The  Concord  may  clo  it  if  it 
chooses,  but  if  it  does  n’t  choose,  the  other  roads  are  left  in  the 
lurch.  It  left  the  Suncook  road  broken  off  like  a  stick  at  Pitts¬ 
field,  instead  of  putting  it  through  to  the  lake  and  opening  up  a 
new,  attractive,  short  route  for  summer  tourists. 

And  so,  I  say,  that  in  whatever  the  Concord  road  has  done 
with  other  roads  it  has  got  hold  of,  it  has  had  no  sort  of  inten¬ 
tion  of  benefiting  the  public  and  increasing  business,  but  instead 
and  simply  to  stop  up  everything  all  round  so  its  profits  would 
be  sure  and  certain  without  any  labor  of  its  own.  They  say 
they  are  going  to  be  real  good  now.  They  have  changed  and 
reduced  the  fares  since  the  legislature  met.  They  have  been 
convicted  of  sin  and  repented ;  but  death-bed  repentance  is 
always  unsatisfactory,  and  in  a  railroad  company  won’t  save  it 
for  it  has  no  soul.  Besides,  the  fact  that  in  the  Atherton  bill 
they  show  the  same  old  determination  and  disposition  to  get 
all  there  is  and  permit  no  one  else  to  come  near,  shows  that  the 
ogre  is  an  ogre  still,  and  that  the  leopard  has  not  changed  his 
spots.  They  are  going  to  build  the  Lake  Shore  road.  What  for? 
They  say  in  their  resolution  that  the  time  has  come  to  do  so  as  a 
matter  of  “ protection Exactly — protection  ! — not  to  help  the 
people  up  there,  but  to  close  that  road  up,  and  let  no  one  else  get 
it.  And  now  they  are  posing  as  friends  of  the  dear  people, 
they  are  so  anxious  to  help  them,  and  are  in  a  nervous  shiver 
and  cold  sweat  alternately  for  fear  the  people  are  going  to  be 


42 


“  gobbled  up.”  Why,  not  since  “  Rogue  Riderhood”  protested 
and  protested  that  he  was  “  an  honest  man  as  gets  his  living  by 
the  sweat  of  his  brow,”  has  there  been  anything  so  delightfully 
absurd.  And  so  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  which  of  these  two 
roads,  judging  from  their  past  history  and  character,  is  the 
more  likely  to  be  the  more  agreeable,  satisfactory,  and  com¬ 
mendable  public  servant?  I  do  not  think  it  is  the  Concord  ;  and 
instead  of  its  presenting  itself  here  with  its  hypocritical  fears  of 
outsiders,  and  with  a  bill  with  the  engaging  title  of  “An  act  to- 
secure  to  New  Hampshire  the  control  of  its  railroads,”  they 
ought  to  call  it  An  act  to  make  perfect,  perpetual,  and  perma¬ 
nent  the  odious  and  intolerable  domination  of  the  Concord  cor¬ 
poration  over  the  welfare  of  the  state,  and  to  divert  the  surplus 
of  the  Concord  road  from  the  control  of  the  state  treasury  into 
the  pockets  of  the  Montreal  syndicate.  [Applause.] 

The  next  question,  and  to  my  mind  the  only  real  question,  if 
this  monstrous  stock-jobbing  scheme  were  eliminated,  is,  Which 
of  these  two  roads,  the  Boston  &  Maine  or  the  Concord,  has 
the  better  facilities,  the  better  arrangements?  which  is  the  more 
advantageously  situated,  and  prepared  for  doing  the  business  of 
this  part  of  the  state  the  more  cheaply,  satisfactorily,  aud  expe¬ 
ditiously?  It  is  a  simple,  plain  business  question,  and  to  it,  it 
seems  to  me,  there  can  be  but  one  answer.  In  the  first  place, 
this  fact  should  be  kept  in  mind,  that  New  Hampshire  being 
distinctively  a  manufacturing  state,  a  state  which  is  obliged  to 
import  large  quantities  of  its  raw  materials,  must  have  cheap, 
rapid,  efficient  transportation  service.  In  the  next  place,  it 
should  be  remembered,  that  no  two  New  England  states  are  so 
closely  identified  in  respect  to  manufacturing  and  commercial 
interests  as  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire.  At  one  time 
New  Hampshire  belonged  to  Massachusetts,  and  no  New  Eng¬ 
land  state  is  so  much  dependent  on  another  as  New  Hampshire 
is  upon  Massachusetts.  Maine  has  an  extensive  sea-coast  with 
numerous  shipping  ports.  Vermont,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode 
Island  have  short  direct  rail  and  water  routes  to  New  York  city 
and  the  west.  Boston  is  the  commercial  centre  of  New  Eng¬ 
land,  but  it  is  so  preeminently,  so  far  as  New  Hampshire  is  con¬ 
cerned.  It  is  the  distributing  point  for  New  Hampshire  prod¬ 
ucts,  the  point  whence  flows  the  great  stream  of  summer  travel, 


the  source  whence  our  manufacturing  materials  are  largely 
drawn.  The  Boston  &  Maine  road  holds  a  most  advantageous 
and  commanding  position  in  Boston  in  respect  to  terminal  facil¬ 
ities  and  traffic  arrrangements,  and  connections  with  various 
transportation  lines  diverging  from  that  city  or  converging 
there. 

Mr.  Sulloway  says  “  this  talk  about  terminal  facilities  amounts 
to  nothing  ;  terminal  facilities  are  of  no  great  account,”  because 
the  Boston  &  Maine  are  obliged  to  let  other  roads  use  them.  Is 
it  not  strange,  gentlemen,  that  railroad  companies  will  pay  mill¬ 
ions  for  terminals  in  the  great  cities,  and  struggle  desperately  to 
get  them,  when  they  are  of  no  particular  advantage?  All  they 
need  to  do  is  to  let  some  one  else  buv  them,  and  thev  can  use 
them  just  the  same  ! 

The  unparalleled  sloth  and  stupidity  of  the  Concord  manage¬ 
ment  permitted  the  Boston  &  Maine  to  gain  control  of  the  Worces¬ 
ter  &  Nashua  road,  by  which  it  commands  short  and  direct  con¬ 
nection  with  the  Boston  &  Albany  and  Hoosac  Tunnel  routes  to 
the  West,  as  well  as  the  Providence  and  New  Haven  lines  to  the 
city  of  New  York,  and  on  completion  of  the  Massachusetts  Cen¬ 
tral  it  will  control  an  easy  route  to  the  coal-fields  of  Pennsylva¬ 
nia.  These  advantages  are  fixed  and  permanent.  It  is  beyond 
the  power  of  the  Concord  road  to  change  them  or  to  obtain  their 
like.  True,  the  Concord  road  may  compel  their  service  to  some 
extent,  but  only  on  such  terms,  by  paying  for  them,  that  mani¬ 
festly  place  it  at  a  disadvantage  ;  and  they  make  certain  and 
changeless  the  character  of  the  Concord  road  as  a  mere  local 
line  in  all  essential  points,  from  which  not  even  its  fine  depot  in 
this  city  can  rescue  or  redeem  it.  Judge  Bingham  says  the  Con¬ 
cord  “  is  a  bright  and  shining  star  of  the  first  magnitude  among 
railroads.”  This  may  be  true  ;  but  every  star  of  the  first  mag¬ 
nitude  does  not  aspire  to  be  a  sun  or  the  centre  of  a  stellar  or 
solar  system  ; — and  it  is  useless  for  the  Concord  road  to  aspire 
to  become  the  nucleus  or  centre  of  a  railway  system.  Its  geo¬ 
graphical  situation  forbids  it.  Its  apathy  in  the  past  has  ren¬ 
dered  any  approach  to  such  a  thing  impossible  now.  The  city 
of  Concord  might  as  well  attempt  to  become  a  sea-port  town,  as 
for  the  Concord  railroad  to  try  to  develop  into  a  railroad  sys¬ 
tem.  The  hard  fact  is,  gentlemen,  the  Concord  road  has  let  its 


44 


chances  and  opportunities  go  by.  They  are  beyond  recall,  and 
it  is  just  as  impossible  to  restore  them  bv  a  bill  as  it  would  be 
to  restore  a  man  stricken  by  lightning  by  reading  a  chapter  on 
health  over  his  dead  body.  [Applause.] 

Edmund  Burke  says,  “  The  situation  of  a  man  is  the  monitor 
of  his  duty” — a  remark  full  of  practical  wisdom.  We  must 
decide  this  matter,  or  should,  as  our  situation  and  the  situation 
of  these  parties  seem  to  indicate  and  compel.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  situation  discloses  but  one  course  to  pursue,  and  that  is, 
to  place  the  business  interests  of  this  state  in  direct,  instant, 
and  efficient  connection  with  the  world,  instead  of  trying  to 
hedge  them  in  by  creating  so  senseless  an  institution  as  a  u  New 
Hampshire  system  of  railroads. ”  In  plain  truth,  the  Concord 
road  has  been  for  years  sitting  comfortable  in  the  sun  of  abound¬ 
ing  prosperity,  content  to  pursue  its  policy  of  “I  don’t  know,” 
complacently  jingling  its  10  percent., — 10  per  cent,  dividends, — 
and  patting,  with  soft,  fat  hands,  its  swelling  surplus  until  it 
has  gone  to  sleep  ;  and  when  some  bright,  enterprising,  driving 
young  fellows  started  in  around  it  and  in  spite  of  it,  and  stirred 
up  some  business  and  commenced  to  make  things  lively,  the 
dear,  delightful  old  gentleman  woke  up  suddenly,  and  rubbing 
his  eyes,  said, — “Boys,  what  in  the  world  are  you  doing  here? 
What  does  all  this  racket  mean?  What  are  you  doing  with  my 
railroad  business  ?  I  ’ll  have  to  see  about  this  !  I  can’t  stand 
it  to  have  so  much  noise  around  here.  I  can’t  sleep.  I  shall 
have  to  go  to  work  and  learn  something  about  railroading.  I 
guess  I’ll  just  step  into  the  legislature  and  have  them  put  a  stop 
to  this  thing.  I  ’ll  tell  them  these  chaps  are  foreigners  and  in¬ 
vaders,  and  want  to  be  millionaires  and  ride  around  here  in  pri¬ 
vate  palatial  cars.  That  will  scare  the  legislature,  I  guess,  so 
they  will  drive  these  fellows  off ;  and  then  I  can  go  down  to  my 
new  depot  and  go  to  sleep  again,  and  take  some  comfort  out  of 
it.”  [Applause.] 

But  it  is  said  that  New  Hampshire  should  “  control  her  own 
railroads.”  That  cry,  in  every  imaginable  form,  has  been  raised 
and  uttered  for. the  last  three  months.  The  title  of  the  Atherton 
bill  is,  “An  act  to  secure  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  the 
control  of  its  railroads” — a  title,  gentlemen,  which  I  submit  is 
designedly  and  purposely  misleading  and  disingenuous,  but  a 


45 


title  that  was  probably  selected  as  being  especially  captivating 
and  cunning  when  it  was  expected  that  the  “  foreign  corpora¬ 
tion”  argument  would  be  a  winning  card,  and  before  the  coun¬ 
sel  of  the  Concord  road  had  been  apprised  of  what  the  law  is 
'  in  respect  to  the  removal  of  causes  into  the  United  States 
courts.  ‘‘An  act  to  secure  to  New  Hampshire  the  control  of  its 
own  railroads!”  Well,  gentlemen,  who  proposes  anything  dif¬ 
ferent?  What  is  there  in  the  Hazen  bill  which  seeks  to  divest 
New  Hampshire  of  that  control?  I  know  of  one  bill  that  seeks 
to  divest  New  Hampshire  of  its  control  of  the  surplus  in  the 
Concord.  I  know  of  but  one  railroad  in  New  Hampshire  which 
she  has  not  controlled  in  the  past,  and  that  is  the  Concord  ;  and 
that  not  because  she  was  unable  to  do  so,  but  because  of  a  most 
unaccountable  forbearance  and  good  nature.  I  think  she  pro¬ 
poses  to  control  that  road  in  the  future.  She  took  the  first  prac¬ 
tical  step  in  that  direction  when  the  Colby  bill  was  passed  in 
1883.  She  will  take  another  step  in  that  direction  when  the 
Hazen  bill  becomes  a  law.  But  is  it  not  a  little  absurd — nay,  is 
not  irony  itself  exhausted — when  a  railroad  company  that  his¬ 
torically  has  spurned  the  authority  of  the  state,  that  notoriously 
has  defrauded  the  state,  that  systematically  has  shuffled  and 
dodged  and  evaded  the  control  of  the  state,  should  present  it¬ 
self  here  with  a  bill  entitled  “An  act  to  secure  to  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  the  control  of  its  railroads”?  Secure  control,  indeed  !  The 
trouble  has  been  that  this  control  has  been  secured  too  much. 
That  was  what  suited  the  Concord  road  exactly  in  the  past : 
this  is  what  it  wants  now  and  in  the  future.  The  Colbv  act  pro¬ 
posed  something  different.  The  act  establishing  the  railroad 
commission  proposed  something  different.  The  Hazen  bill  pro¬ 
poses  something  different.  They  propose  that  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  shall  not  only  control  her  railroads,  but  that  she 
shall  exercise  control  over  them  and  make  them  her  agents  and 
servants  for  enlarging  and  diversifying  her  opportunities,  devel¬ 
oping  her  resources,  and  carrying  their  benefits  in  equal  meas¬ 
ure  into  every  region  within  her  borders. 

But  what  is  meant,  precisely,  by  the  expression  “  the  control 
of  railroads”?  As  it  has  been  used  in  the  course  of  this  con¬ 
test,  in  the  newspapers  and  elsewhere,  it  is  in  every  sense 
mere  “sounding  brass.”  But  the  expression  has  a  substantial 


46 


meaning,  a  legitimate  signification,  and  it  will  serve  to  demon¬ 
strate  how  hollow,  deceptive,  and  insincere  this  cry  is  about  the 
state’s  securing  control  of  its  railroads  under  the  Atherton  bill 
and  of  losing  it  if  the  Hazen  bill  is  passed,  if  we  stop  for  a 
moment  to  analyze  what  that  control  is  and  how  it  may  be  ex¬ 
ercised.  In  the  first  place,  the  state  may,  if  it  choose,  own  all 
its  railroads,  and  run  them  as  a  state  institution,  as  Belgium 
has  long  done.  That  would  be  one  kind  of  control,  but  a  kind, 
surely,  which  the  people  of  this  state  are  not  ready  to  adopt,  and 
a  kind  which,  when  adopted,  has  been  proved  to  be  dangerous 
and  unwise. 

Secondly,  the  state  mav  permit  individuals  to  own  railroads, 
entrust  to  them  their  management  as  a  business  enterprise,  and 
in  that  case  the  railroads  are  the  servants  of  the  state,  possessed 
of  certain  valuable  rights,  and  charged  with  corresponding  duties, 
but  with  those  rights  and  those  duties  equally  subordinate  to 
the  power  of  the  state  operating  through  its  executive,  legisla¬ 
tive,  and  judicial  departments.  The  power  of  those  several  de¬ 
partments  of  the  state’s  authority  is  fixed  in  the  constitution, 
unmoved  and  immovable  by  anything  short  of  revolution.  Any 
railroad  in  this  state,  by  whomsoever  owned,  can  exist  and  re¬ 
main  only  so  long  as  it  is  permitted  by  the  sovereign  will  of  the 
people,  expressed  through  the  supreme  legislative  power  of  the 
general  court,  which  may  at  any  time  alter,  amend,  or  repeal  its 
charter,  or  the  law  under  which  it  is  organized.  The  details  of 
its  management,  whether  it  be  in  matters  of  construction, 
equipment,  train  service,  or  charges,  are  within  the  prerogative 
of  the  general  court,  acting  immediately  or  through  the  dele¬ 
gated  power  and  authority  of  a  railroad  commission.  It  is  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  processes,  mandates,  and  orders  of  the  courts  of  law 
and  equity,  and  through  them  may  be  summoned  to  answer  for 
any  violation  of  its  obligations,  and  for  any  injury  done  by  it  to 
the  state  or  to  any  citizen  thereof.  And  if  any  railroad  operated 
within  this  state  should,  in  the  quaint  language  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  “  in  a  hostile  manner,  attempt  or  enterprise  the  destruction, 
invasion,  detriment,  or  annoyance  of  this  state,”  the  governor, 
as  captain-general  and  commander-in-chief  of  the  military  forces 
of  the  state,  may  summon  them  forth  and  destroy  it.  These, 
gentlemen,  in  general,  are  the  methods  and  means  by  which  the 


47 


state  controls  its  railroads.  They  are  ample.  There  can  be  no 
other  control.  No  other  or  different  is  necessary  or  possible. 
Nothing  contained  in  the  Hazen  bill  can  abridge  or  modify  or 
•change  it.  It  inheres  in  the  sovereignty  of  the  state,  and  no 
railroad  operated  within  the  state  can  escape  out  of  that  control, 
any  more  than  you  or  I  can  escape  from  the  air  that  surrounds 
us  or  the  force  that  binds  us  to  the  earth. 

Judge  Bingham  and  Judge  Cross  try  to  make  it  appear  that 
there  would  be  great  difficulty  in  getting  at  the  Boston  &  Maine 
in  case  some  one  wanted  to  commence  a  suit  against  it,  and 
Judge  Cross  spoke  of  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  getting  at  the 
officials  of  this  road.  Judge  Bingham  said, — “This  Boston  & 
Maine  Railroad  is  a  corporation  whose  officers  are  all  out  of  the 
state.  You  can’t  reach  them  by  legal  process  if  you  want  to 
see  their  books,  or  if  you  want  the  testimony  of  one  of  their 
•clerks  ;  you  will  be  compelled,  in  all  your  business  of  a  legal 
nature  wJth  the  railroads,  to  go  down  out  of  the  state  to  find  out 
anything  about  them.” 

Gentlemen,  I  am  amazed  that  such  arguments  should  be  se¬ 
riously  urged  by  lawyers  of  such  eminence  as  Judge  Bingham 
and  Judge  Cross,  when  every  lawyer  knows  that  any  corpora¬ 
tion,  domestic  or  foreign,  mav  be  summoned  into  court  by  serv- 
ing  any  one  in  its  employ ;  and  if  a  railway  company  has  a 
ticket  agent  here,  and  every  official  is  out  of  the  state,  service 
•of  a  writ  may  be  made  on  him.  So  far  as  examining  books, 
they  can  always  be  examined  in  any  proper  case  by  order  of  the 
court ;  but  I  suppose  Judge  Bingham  wants  that  thing  arranged 
in  the  way  the  Concord  has  it.  Their  books  are  open  to  any 
one  that  comes  along  at  any  time  ;  and  if  anybody  has  occasion 
to  see  one  of  the  officials  who  happens  to  be  busy,  he  can  go 
down  and  rest  himself  on  one  of  the  luxurious  couches  that 
Judge  Cross  described,  that  are  provided  for  rich  aud  poor  in 
the  new  depot.  [Merriment.] 

The  men  who  own  the  stock  in  the  railroads  of  the  state,  the 
directors,  and  managers,  may  live  here,  or  in  Boston,  New  York, 
San  Francisco,  or  Australia.  The  railroads  are  here,  and  above 
and  over  them  is  the  sovereign  might  and  domination  of  the 
state.  In  what  respect  is  the  control  of  the  state  over  the  Boston 
&  Maine  and  the  Lowell  anv  less  or  different  than  it  is  over  the 


48 


Concord  or  the  Northern,  or  how  can  it  be  any  less  or  different? 
Massachusetts  compelled  the  Concord  road  to  fulfil  its  duty  in 
respect  to  the  Acton  road  as  absolutely  as  though  it  were  a 
Massachusetts  corporation.  New  York  enforces  obedience  to 
its  laws  from  the  Boston  &  Albany,  Pennsylvania  from  the 
Lake  Shore,  Ohio  from  the  Pennsylvania.  When  the  New  York 
Central  proposed  to  consolidate  the  eleven  separate  roads  which 
constituted  the  line  from  Albany  to  Buffalo,  some  of  them  par¬ 
allel  and  competing,  and  when  afterwards  this  consolidated  line 
united  to  itself  the  Harlem  &  Hudson  River,  did  the  state  of 
New  York  start  up  in  dismay  and  cry  out  that  an  overgrown, 
dangerous  corporation  was  going  to  swallow  up  the  state?  And 
when  later  this  combined  railway  went  into  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Michigan,  and  Illinois,  and  undertook  to  control  aud 
manage  the  great  Lake  Shore  combination,  and  when,  later  still, 
it  came  into  possession  of  the  New  York,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis, 
which  is  parallel  to  the  Lake  Shore  and  within  sight  of  it,  did 
these  states  cry  out  that  they  were  being  invaded ;  that  an 
outside  or  a  foreign  corporation  was  coming  in  to  “  gobble  up  ” 
their  roads,  and  were  going,  as  Mr.  Chase  expressed  it,  u  to 
make  them  pay  tribute  to  a  road  whose  officers  were  outside,” 
who  had  no  pride  in  these  states  and  no  interests  there,  and 
that  they  proposed  to  have  an  Ohio  system  or  a  Michigan  sys¬ 
tem  ;  that  Illinois  should  control  her  own  roads,  or  that  Indiana 
roads  should  be  managed  by  Indiana  men  ;  that  they  did  not 
propose  to  have  a  great  company,  whose  officers  and  directors 
were  in  New  York  cit}’,  coming  in  to  manage  their  affairs  and 
to  ruin  their  people  ?  No,  they  welcomed  the  invader ;  they 
hailed  the  prospect ; — they  said,  the  New  York  Central  is  a  pow¬ 
erful  company  ;  its  lines  touch  the  greatest  centres  of  trade  in 
New  York  ;  it  has  its  terminus  in  New  York  city,  the  metropo¬ 
lis  of  the  continent,  the  distributing  centre  of  commerce  ;  it  has 
its  depots,  and  ware-houses,  and  elevators,  and  docks  there, 
all  the  facilities  for  handling  the  traffic  which  must  have  its  out¬ 
let  there  ;  our  products  can  be  transported  over  such  a  line 
more  cheaply,  more  quickly,  more  safely,  to  the  markets  of  the 
world  ;  and  that  the  increased  responsibility  which  such  a  com¬ 
pany  must  feel  and  have  to  carry  is  the  best  guaranty  and 
assurance  that  it  will  be  managed  with  a  view  to  the  prosperity 


49 


and  business  advancement  of  the  country  it  proposes  to  serve  ; 
for  that  is  the  surest  means  to  secure  its  own  prosperity.  These 
combined  consolidated  roads  have  become  a  mighty  continental 
highwa}\  Every  farm  and  town,  village  and  city,  within  its 
reach  has  drawn  from  it  untold  advantage  and  unmeasured 
wealth.  In  the  light  of  such  an  example  as  this,  which  is  only 
one  of  a  score,  how  short-sighted  and  purblind  is  the  policy 
which  would  cut  off  New  Hampshire  from  the  benefits  of  such 
a  system,  and  how  absolutely  foolish,  how  exasperatingly  stupid, 
is  the  proposition  that  the  Concord  road  should  be  permitted  to 
sit  in  the  lap  of  this  valley  like  a  Jew  in  the  market-place,  to 
obstruct  commerce  and  to  suffocate  business  under  the  pretence 
that  the  state  will  be  ruined,  its  business  destroyed,  if  another 
New  Hampshire  company  is  permitted  to  throw  open  an  avenue 
from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Canadian  line  ! 

Again  :  It  is  said  by  the  opponents  of  this  bill  that  we  want  a 
New  Hampshire  system  of  railroads  controlled  by  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  men,  whose  interests  are  in  New  Hampshire,  and  who  will 
be  interested  in  building  up  New  Hampshire  business.  Gentle¬ 
men,  to  my  mind  such  talk  as  this  is  absolutely  meaningless  for 
any  purpose  except  to  breed  a  petty  prejudice.  What  is  there 
in  the  situation,  the  business,  the  interests  of  New  Hampshire, 
that  she  should  require  a  railroad  system  unique,  singular,  or 
different  from  that  which  other  states  require?  The  commerce 
and  trade  of  this  state  are  not  limited  by  state  lines.  They  are 
inextricably  associated  and  interwoven  with  the  trade  of  every 
state  and  of  the  world.  The  problem  before  New  Hampshire  is, 
not  how  she  can  most  effectively  isolate  herself,  but  how  she  can 
most  readily  and  easity  reach  the  marts  of  the  world.  She  can¬ 
not  live  to  herself  alone,  and  the  proposition  that  she  shall 
attempt  to  establish  a  railway  system  upon  a  plan  that  consults 
state  lines  is  a  proposition  to  revert  to  the  condition  of  things 
which  obtained  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution.  Then  every  state 
undertook  to  circumscribe  its  industrial  and  commercial  interests 
bv  state  lines,  with  the  result  that  everv  state  steadilv  declined 
in  all  material  interests.  The  jealousies  and  rivalries  and  con¬ 
sequent  losses  which  followed  disclosed  the  supreme  necessity 
for  a  federal  union  ;  and  the  federal  compact  whose  paramount 

object  is  to  secure  “the  general  welfare,”  and  the  federal  con- 
4 


50 


stitutional  provision  which  confers  upon  congress  the  exclusive 
Tight  to  regelate  commerce  among  the  several  states,  have  stood 
for  a  hundred  years  an  historic  monument  of  the  principle  of 
consolidation  in  ivhatever  touches  the  common  concerns  of  the 
states.  How  the  unparalleled  growth  of  every  state  in  wealth, 
in  population,  in  all  the  arts  of  a  refined  and  advanced  civiliza¬ 
tion,  which  has  come  from  their  unrestrained  and  unrestricted 
commerce,  rebukes  the  attempt  to  revive  in  New  Hampshire  in 
any  form  a  policy  which  she  discarded  a  century  ago  ! 

The  Duke  of  Wellington  once  said,  in  parliament,  that  in  deal¬ 
ing  with  railroads  it  was  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  the  analogy 
of  “  the  king’s  highway.”  English  railroad  legislation  which 
followed  that  analogy  has  been  abandoned.  It  could  not  be 
made  to  conform  to  any  such  limitations;  but  the  analog}7  of 
“  the  king’s  highway”  was  the  perfection  of  wisdom  as  a  guid¬ 
ing  principle,  in  comparison  with  the  proposition  that  the  rail¬ 
road  legislation  of  auy  American  state,  in  these  days  of  conti¬ 
nental  competition  for  the  markets  of  the  world,  shall  be  deter¬ 
mined  with  reference  to  state  bounds  and  to  the  residence  and 
birthplace  of  stockholders  ! 

The  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Moore,  closed  his  speech  on 
this  motion  with  a  sounding  and  rhetorical  period,  in  which  he 
gave  this  as  a  reason  why  this  bill  should  be  postponed  :  “In 
after  years,  when  the  West  and  South  shall  count  their  fifty  mill¬ 
ions,  the  centre  its  fifty  more,  and  the  tired  sons  and  daughters 
of  New  Hampshire  shall  return  to  climb  the  hills  they  climbed 
the  earliest,  let  no  such  meaningless  and  misplaced  legend  greet 
them  as  ‘  Boston  &  Maine’  or  4  Boston  &  Lowell,”  but  let  it  be 
the  ‘  New  Hampshire  Railway,’  controlled  by  New  Hampshire 
men.” 

As  I  listened  to  that  sentence  from  the  accomplished  gentle¬ 
man,  I  was  constrained  to  ask  myself,  Is  it  possible  that  such  an 
argument  as  that  can  be  addressed  to  a  New  England  legislature, 
in  a  New  England  state,  the  state  that  claims  the  home  of  Web¬ 
ster,  within  sight  of  his  birthplace,  under  the  shadow  of  his  statue, 
and  in  this  year  of  our  independence  the  one  hundred  and 
eleventh?  Can  it  be  that  a  cultivated  New  Englander  will  argue 
like  that?  Why,  gentlemen,  I  can  conceive  of  nothing  better 
calculated  to  make  a  returning  son  or  daughter  of  New  Hamp- 


51 


shire  “  tired”  than  such  talk.  Aud  if  such  a  legend  as  the  gen¬ 
tleman  proposes  is  to  be  written  over  the  doorway  of  the  Granite 
state,  I  fancy  that  a  son  or  daughter  returning  from  the  South  or 
West,  on  seeing  it,  would  say, — u  Well,  they  have  fenced  in  the 
dear  old  state.  I  guess  I  will  go  back  where  the  air  of  freedom 
is  still  clear  and  the  fountains  of  liberty  are  still  sweet  and 
pure.”  [Applause.] 

Again  :  It  is  said  that  if  the  Boston  &  Maine  road  shall 
become  the  lessee  of  the  Northern  and  the  Montreal,  we  shall  be 
delivering  ourselves  bound  into  the  hands  of  a  great  corporation,, 
which  will  control  in  its  own  interests  the  legislative  and  judi¬ 
cial  powers  of  the  state,  making  aud  unmaking  laws  to  suit  its. 
own  purposes  and  the  ambition  of  its  managers.  It  was  pre- 
cisel}7  this  sort  of  argument  and  prophecy  that  was  used  in  Eng¬ 
land  during  the  discussion  of  the  problem  ;  and  how  completely 
these  arguments  were  refuted  aud  these  prophecies  falsified  by 
the  results  which  followed,  everyone  knows.  I  have  shown  you< 
how  completely  subject  to  the  authority  and  control  of  the  state 
every  and  all  railroads  are,  lying  within  the  state,  irrespective  of 
who  or  where  the  stockholders  or  directors  are.  But,  gentle¬ 
men,  what  is  the  necessary  inference  that  must  be  drawn  from 
the  proposition  to  which  I  have  referred?  Why,  this,  that  no 
legislature  in  New  Hampshire  can  be  elected  that  will  not  be 
venal  and  purchasable,  no  judiciary  appointed  that  will  not  be 
corrupt ;  and  that  the  people  of  this  commonwealth  have  not 
enough  civic  virtue,  honesty,  principle,  and  integrity  to  preserve 
them  from  the  contaminating  and  destroying  influence  of  money,, 
and  would  sell  their  birthright  of  constitutional  liberty.  Gen¬ 
tlemen,  though  only  an  adopted  citizen  of  this  state,  my  heart 
thrills  with  pride  when  I  recall  the  history  of  her  early  strug¬ 
gles,  the  triumph  of  her  industries  over  the  forbidding  and  sul¬ 
len  obstacles  of  nature,  and  her  growth  into  the  beautiful,  pros¬ 
perous,  and  happy  republic  that  she  is  to-day.  The  men  who 
fought  their  way  into  the  mountain  wilds  of  the  province  of 
New  Hampshire,  and  undertook  the  work  of  building  up  a 
Christian  civilization,  were  of  no  common  stock,  of  no  low  and 
vulgar  strain.  They  were  men  of  hardy  virtues,  who  brought 
hither  the  truest  traditions  of  personal  and  political  freedom* 
and  impressed  them  at  once  and  forever  upon  the  character  of 


52 


the  commonwealth.  None  of  the  colonies  were  quicker  to  dis¬ 
cern  the  encroachments  of  the  crown  than  New  Hampshire, 
none  more  instant  to  repel  their  advances  ;  no  clearer  voice 
than  hers  was  raised  to  protest  against  them  ;  and  on  the  field 
where  the  first  blood  of  the  Revolution  was  shed,  as  on  the  last 
where  England’s  pride  was  humbled,  her  sons  were  found  to 
resist  them.  When  the  Revolution  was  ended,  although  her  peo¬ 
ple  were  the  most  impoverished  and  bowed  down  of  all  the  col¬ 
onists  by  the  losses  of  the  war,  the  most  distressed  and  debt- 
burdened,  it  is  to  her  eternal  glory,  and  an  enduring  memorial 
to  her  integrity,  that  New  Hampshire  alone,  of  all  the  New 
England  states,  refused  to  compromise  her  honor  by  issuing  a 
worthless  paper  currency.  In  every  vicissitude  through  which 
the  nation  has  passed  from  that  hour  to  this,  the  sturdy,  sub¬ 
stantial,  sinewy  little  state  of  New  Hampshire  has  ever  been 
found  steadfast,  loyal, — true  to  whatever  makes  for  the  welfare 
of  herself  and  the  great  republic  which  she  helped  to  establish. 
Shame,  shame  upon  the  son  of  New  Hampshire  who  shall  tell 
us  that  the  principle,  the  fidelity,  the  virtue,  the  honor  of  the 
state  are  fading  awav  or  have  departed  ;  that  her  people  to-day 
are  any  less  watchful  of  their  liberties  than  the  men  who  march¬ 
ed  to  Bunker  Hill  or  to  Bennington  ;  or  that  any  man  or  combi¬ 
nation  of  men,  corporation  or  corporations  or  syndicate,  can 
steal  away  her  freedom  or  overthrow  her  sovereignty,  so  long  as 
summer  skies  shall  smile  above  her  lovely  valleys,  or  winter 
storms  shall  sweep  her  heaven-aspiring  mountains.  [Applause.] 
Gentlemen,  I  have  listened  to  all  of  the  speeches  of  counsel 
for  the  Concord  road  ;  I  have  read  all  the  testimony  they  have 
produced  in  opposition  to  this  bill ;  and  in  all  of  the  speeches 
and  testimony  I  have  not  found  a  single  argument  or  reason  of 
substantial  merit,  or  that  is  calculated  to  influence  the  judgment 
of  any  candid  man.  Out  of  all  the  thousands  of  patrons  of  the 
Boston  &  Maine  and  the  Lowell  roads,  which  have  been  described 
and  depicted  as  formless  monsters,  how  many  have  been  found 
who  would  come  here  and  utter  a  word  against  them  under  oath  ? 
Just  four.  And  who  are  they?  Ira  Whitcher,  who  complained 
because  the  Boston  &  Lowell  road,  rather  than  let  his  trade  be 
done  by  a  Vermont  road,  hauled  his  lumber  from  Woodsville  to 
Lebanon,  a  distance  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-three  miles,  for 


53 


the  same  price  that  was  charged  by  the  Passumpsic  for  fifty-two 
miles  ;  A.  L.  Brown,  who  by  overloading  cars,  and  by  means  of 
a  secret  unconscionable  contract  had  been  for  years  beating 
every  honest  lumber  dealer  in  the  state,  until  he  was  compelled 
to  stand  on  equal  ground  with  all  other  dealers  ;  E.  C.  Morse, 
of  Haverhill,  Mass.,  whose  zeal  for  the  welfare  of  his  city  was 
measured  by  a  four  per  cent,  investment ;  and  Tom  Smith, 
whose  ethereal,  sublimated  organism  had  been  shocked  at  the 
sanitary  condition  of  the  Boston  &  Maine  road,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  New  Hampshire  state  board  of  health  had  commended 
“  its  general  excellence.”  The  speeches  of  counsel  were  not 
arguments  designed  to  explain  and  prove  the  general  and  com¬ 
prehensive  advantages  which  would  accrue  to  the  state  by  a 
consolidation  of  these  roads  under  the  Concord  management  as 
against  the  Boston  &  Maine.  They  were  the  arguments  of  de¬ 
spair,  appeals  to  the  most  unworthy  motives,  to  the  fears,  the 
passions,  the  prejudices  of  men.  The  key  note  of  Brother 
Chase’s  speech  was  “  foreign  corporation.”  The  text  of  Brother 
Mitchell’s  was  “  invaders,”  “  violators  of  the  law.”  Judge 
Cross  had  nothing  better  to  offer  than  u  unmitigated  cant  ” 
about  millionaires  and  Goulds  and  Vanderbilts ;  and  Judge 
Bingham’s  four-hour  speech  was  chiefly  devoted  to  denounc¬ 
ing  imaginary  stock-watering,  and  arraigning  gentlemen  who 
had  acted  on  his  advice.  Not  a  business  man  of  Concord  or 
Manchester  or  Nashua  was  willing  to  go  on  the  stand  and  say  a 
word  in  commendation  of  the  Concord  management.  Not  a  cit¬ 
izen  of  Dover,  who  said  that  the  Hazen  bill  should  be  killed,  ven¬ 
tured  to  come  on  the  stand  and  say  why  we  should  “  kill  it.” 
They  preferred  to  testify  in  a  newspaper,  and  to  be  cross-exam¬ 
ined  by  a  reporter.  The  methods  generally  that  have  been  pur¬ 
sued  by  the  Concord  road  in  the  conduct  of  their  case  have  been 
the  methods  of  desperation ,  and  characterized  by  an  insincerity 
that  has  become  more  and  more  evident  and  emphatic  as  the  ex¬ 
igencies  of  their  cause  have  grown  daily  more  pressing  and  immi¬ 
nent.  They  have  been  the  methods  of  ward  meetings  and  of  ward 
politicians.  Witness  how  the  lobby,  the  gallery,  the  aisles,  and 
the  seats  of  this  hall  were  thronged  night  after  night  and  day 
after  dav  with  men  who  were  brought  in  here  to  manufacture 

4/  O 

applause  and  to  create  an  apparent  public  sentiment!  Witness 


54 


the  disgraceful  performance  enacted  upon  this  floor  when  retain¬ 
ers  and  ex-judges  and  members  of  congress  poured  into  these 
seats  and  filled  these  spaces,  and  at  a  given  signal  broke  into 
cheers  and  shouts  and  applause  that  called  forth  the  rebuke  of 
the  speaker,  for  the  purpose  of  stampeding  this  house  out  of  its 
senses  !  We  have  heard  a  great  deal  said  about  some  outside 
organization  that  was  trying  to  come  into  the  state  to  corrupt  us 
or  ruin  us  ;  but,  gentlemen,  when  we  have  in  our  midst  a  domes¬ 
tic  growth,  wholly  native  and  indigenous,  that  possesses  such 
qualities  and  such  resources  as  have  here  been  exhibited  and 
revealed  within  a  few  days,  I  do  not  think  we  have  much  to  fear 
from  anything  of  foreign  growth  or  imported  character  ; — and  if 
the  state  has  got  to  be  dominated  by  any  organization  of  that 
kind,  for  Heaven’s  sake  let  its  home  and  habitation  be  in  Bos¬ 
ton  and  not  in  the  capital  city  of  this  state  ! 

There  has  been  nothing  sterling,  or  ingenuous,  or  manly  about 
them.  They  have  been  specious  and  paltry,  and  evasive  from 
the  beginning  until  now.  They  have  recalled  to  my  recollection 
a  hundred  times  the  old  couplet, — 

“  All  seem  infected  which  the  infected  spy, 

As  all  seem  yellow  to  the  jaundiced  eye.5' 

Mr.  Lincoln  once  said,  k‘  You  can  fool  all  of  the  people  some 
of  the  time  ;  you  can  fool  some  of  the  people  all  of  the  time  ; 
but  you  can’t  fool  all  of  the  people  all  of  the  time.”  I  think 
this  observation  will  be  verified  by  the  results  of  this  contest. 
All  of  the  people  of  this  state  will  not  be  fooled  all  of  the  time 
in  respect  to  its  railroad  interests  by  the  Concord  road. 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  us  cast  aside  all  of  the  irrelevant  and 
immaterial  issues  that  have  been  imported  into  this  matter  for 
the  purpose,  I  believe,  of  obscuring  what,  it  seems  to  me,  are 
the  only  two  issues  of  substantial  merit  involved,  and  meet  and 
decide  them  calmly  and  dispassionately.  Let  us  not  be  deceived 
by  any  of  the  cheap  political  arts  that  have  been  used  to  influ¬ 
ence  our  action  ;  but  let  us  vindicate  the  honor  and  integrity  of 
the  state.  Let  us  seize  the  noble  opportunity  which  we  have 
for  advancing  her  prosperity.  Let  us  keep  her  face  to  the  fut¬ 
ure,  and  not  turn  it  backward  to  the  past,  and  to  a  return  to  the 
narrow,  colonial,  insular  policy  that  she  left  behind  her  four 


55 


years  ago.  Above  all,  let  us  not  adopt  any  such  miserable  un- 
American  policy  as  would  attempt  to  circumscribe  our  interests 
by  state  lines  and  repel  the  resources  and  enterprise  of  neighbor¬ 
ing  states  and  fellow-countrymen  by  uplifting  the  motto,  “None 
but  New  Hampshire  people  need  apply.”  Let  us  rather  swing 
wide  our  gates  to  the  world  and  to  mankind,  and  inscribe  above 
them  those  words  which  even  a  heathen  queen  of  Carthage  had 
the  wisdom  to  utter  to  ASneas  and  his  storm-tossed  allies, — 

“Tros  Tyriusque  mihi  nullo  discrimine  agetur,” — 

“  Trojan  and  Tyrian  shall  be  treated  by  me  without  any  discrim¬ 
ination.”  [Loud  and  long  continued  applause.] 


I 


) 


